P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. The instant Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"), against the Award dated 7.7.2008 passed by 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bilaspur (for short, "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 23/2008, whereby the liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Appellants. The Appellants are the driver and owners respectively of the tractor-trolley involved in the accident, bearing Registration No. CG10-D/1474 (Tractor) and CG10-A/1484 (Trolley). Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the Claimants being the wife and children of Vinod Kumar Loniya (the deceased). Respondent No. 4-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., was the insurer of the said Tractor-Trolley at the relevant point of time. Respondents Nos. 5 to 13 are mother, father, brothers and sisters respectively of the deceased Vinod Kumar Loniya.

2. Facts leading to the filing of the instant Appeal are that Respondents Nos. 1 to 3/Claimants had filed a claim application under Section 163-A of the Act before the Tribunal seeking for compensation for the accidental death of the deceased. The contention of the Claimants was that on 12.9.2007, Vinod Kumar Loniya was travelling in a tractor-trolley belonging to Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 (Jaleshwar Kaushik and Chandra Kumar Kaushik) of which the Appellant No. 1 (Rameshwar Kaushik) was the driver and that when the said Tractor reached near Kabir Mandir at Village Parsada (Bharni), Vinod Kumar Loniya fell down and came beneath the wheels of the said tractor-trolley resulting in sustaining of grievous injuries to Vinod Kumar Loniya who later succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. The Claimants contended that the deceased was engaged as a labour in the said tractor-trolley owned by Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and was earning an amount of about Rs. 100-125/- per day. On account of the death of the deceased, the Claimants had claimed an amount of Rs. 11,80,000/- as compensation from the driver (Appellant No. 1), owners (Appellants Nos. 2 & 3) and the insurer (Respondent No. 4) of the said tractor-trolley.

3. The Appellants (driver and owners of the offending tractor-trolley) entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed their Written Statement denying the claim of the Claimants and in their Written Statement they attributed the cause of accident upon the deceased himself stating that the deceased without intimating the driver jumped from the moving tractor-trolley and came beneath the wheels of the said tractor-trolley resulting in grievous injuries and subsequent death. The Appellants in addition to denying the contentions, further alleged that if at all if the Appellants are liable for making any payment, since the vehicle belonging to the Appellants was insured with Respondent No. 4-Insurance Company therefore the liability of payment of compensation should be saddled upon the insurer of the vehicle, i.e., Respondent No. 4.

4. Respondent No. 4 - Insurance Company entering appearance before the Tribunal submitted their response denying their liability for payment of compensation firstly on the ground that Appellant No. 1 (driver of the vehicle) was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and as such there was a breach of policy conditions. Secondly, there was a breach of policy conditions by the Appellants to the extent that the tractor-trolley was insured for agricultural works but at the time of accident the tractor-trolley was being used for non-agricultural works. Further, it was also contended by Respondent No. 4-Insurance Company that there were other 4-5 persons, also in the Tractor-Trolley. The Insurance Company had further contended that the vehicle was insured to the extent of any damage caused to a third-party and also the risk of the driver and that the deceased was not the third-party but was travelling in the said tractor-trolley in the capacity of a labour for whom there was no premiu