JUDGMENT

Sunil K. Kotwal, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Basmat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 44 of 2012, awarding compensation of Rs. 8,54,000/-, but exonerating original respondent No. 2 Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the owner of offending vehicle i.e. Tractor No. MH-32/A-1762 and trailer No. MH-32/ A-1763.

2. Appellant is original respondent No. 1, who is the owner of offending vehicle. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are original claimants and respondent No. 3 is insurer of offending vehicle.

3. Facts, in nut shell, are that on 14th September, 2009 deceased Vitthal Pandurang Garole along with other 6 to 7 labours went to Anji to bring electric poles to Pandhuma. After loading the electric poles in the trailer of the offending vehicle, when they were proceeding towards Pandhuma at about 1.30 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor it turned over. In that accident, deceased Vitthal sustained serious injuries and other labours also sustained injuries. Though the deceased was rushed to the V.N. Government Medical College and Hospital Yeotmal, he succumbed to his injuries. Therefore, being dependents of deceased, the claimants filed petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation.

4. The Tribunal allowed the petition, however, respondent No. 2 Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability and liability to pay compensation was fastened only against original respondent No. 1 owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, this appeal.

5. Heard Shri N.L.Jadhav, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S. Rathi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 insurer of the vehicle.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though issue was framed by the Tribunal regarding breach of condition of policy of the insurance by owner of the offending vehicle, there was no specific pleading of Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was used for commercial purpose.

7. Next submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove breach of condition of policy of the insurance. He submits that premium paid by owner of the offending vehicle under Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 covers the liability of the labours including the deceased. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. He placed reliance on Fahim Ahmed and others v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors., 2014 (3) All MR 963 : 2014 (2) T.A.C. 383.

8. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 insurer of the offending vehicle has drawn my attention towards written statement filed by insurer and submits that specific plea regarding breach of condition of policy is taken by Insurance Company. He submits that the owner of the offending vehicle was in the business of laying electric lines and for that purpose on the date of accident electric poles were loaded and transported by offending tractor and trailer, which met with the accident, resulting in the death of the deceased. His contention is that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the offending vehicle cannot be used for the purpose other than the agriculture. This vehicle cannot be used for transport of any passenger. Thus, when the claimants in their pleadings admit the transport of electric poles by the offending vehicle and when owner has admitted in his cross-examination about the electric poles in the tractor, the breach of condition of policy is duly proved by the Insurance Company.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the owner Sunil Dixit (DW 1) has admitted in his cross-examination that he runs the business of laying electric lines. Therefore, considering the admitted facts on record and recitals of the first information report and spot panchanama, it is duly established that at the time of occurrence, the offending vehicle w