1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.12.2011 in M.C.O.P.No. 564 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court), Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.564 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Fast Track Court, (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Dindigul. The 3rd respondent herein is the owner of the Tractor, arrayed as R1, bearing Registration No.TN-60-Y-6510, which was insured with the appellant, who is arrayed as 2nd respondent in the said claim petition. The deceased viz., Seetha is the mother of the claimants, who are unmarried son and daughter of the deceased. The fatal accident in which the mother of the claimants died took place on 15.06.2010.

3. It has been stated in the claim petition that while the said Seetha travelled as a labour after unloading the bricks by sitting nearer to the driver of the Tractor, she fell down from the tractor, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor, and died on the spot itself.

4. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of the said Seetha. The deceased is a agricultural coolie and was earning a sum of Rs.6000/- per month and the deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. The owner of the said Tractor/R1/first respondent, was set ex-parte. The insurer/R2 alone contested the claim by filing an application, under Section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act, and counter statement. The insurer took the defence before the Tribunal that the driver of the Tractor was not having any valid licence on the date of occurrence and the deceased herself invited the accident by sitting nearer to the driver of the tractor in breach of terms of the policy and hence, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation, as sought for in the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal held that the insurer failed to prove that the driver of the Tractor is not having any valid licence on the date of occurrence and there was no violation of policy, since the deceased Seeta sat near to the seat of the driver of the Tractor ie., Mudguard, as load woman on the date of occurrence and hence, the owner of the Tractor/R1 and the Insurer of the said Tractor/R2 are liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,62,000/- jointly and severally with 7.5% per annum towards interest and costs from the date of filing the claim petition.

6. Aggrieved over the Award of the Tribunal, the insurer filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court disputing the liability and also quantum of compensation.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company would contend that, when the vehicle involved is the Tractor and the deceased was travelled in the Tractor by sitting on the Mudguard, near to the driver seat and fell down from the Tractor, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable, since it is in violation of policy conditions. When there is no proof that the deceased was travelling as a loadwoman and even according to the claimants, she is only an agricultural labour, there is no question of awarding compensation and fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. He further would contend that the driver of the Tractor is not having any valid driving licence, at the time of accident and awarding loss of income without any proof of income and also love and affection are highly excessive.

8. Perused the materials on record. Heard and considered the rival submissions made on either side.

9. The deceased in this case is a 3rd party. The owner of the vehicle was set ex-parte in appeal. The vehicle involved in this case is admittedly insured with the appellant Insurance Company and policy was also in force on the date of occurrence. Notices were sent to the driver of the Tractor and also to the owner of Tractor/R1, during the trial of claim petition for furnishing and production of the