HARSH KUMAR, J.

1. This F.A.F.O. has been filed against the judgment and award dated 9.10.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.16/M.A.C.T., Kanpur Nagar, hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' in M.A.C.P. No.639 of 2011, Mahaveer and another Vs. Vijay Singh and others awarding a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- to claimant-respondent Nos.1 & 2 with interest @ 6% per annum and directing National Insurance Company Ltd. to make payment of decretal amount with right of recovery from owner of vehicle.

2. Brief facts relating to the case are that respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed M.A.C.P. No.639 of 2011 under Sections 166 and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act with averments that their 19 years old son Ranjit Verma was going by Eicher Tractor No.UP 78 BX 3373, hereinafter referred to as 'offending tractor' along with Suraj and Ramkesh by sitting over the mudguard of tractor and due to rash and negligent driving by its driver Ram Singh when tractor came on 80 ft. road, in attempt to save a biker, it turned turtle and Ranjit Verma was crushed under tractor with grievous injuries resulting in his death on the spot. It was also contended that at the time of accident offending tractor being driven by duly licenced driver Ram Singh, was owned by Vijay Singh, appellant and was duly insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. The owner of the vehicle, Vijay Singh filed written statement and in para 12 of written statement denied the occurrence of accident in question by his tractor stating that accident appears to have taken place with some other vehicle and claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Insurance Company filed separate written statement denying the allegations made in petition and in para 11 of the written statement it was contended that an uninsured trolly was attached with tractor and deceased was travelling in trolly and the travelling of deceased was unlawful as of gracious passenger in breach of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed thereunder as well as terms of insurance policy.

3. Upon pleadings of parties various issues were framed by Tribunal and on issue No.1 it came to the conclusion that accident in question did take place due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor by its driver in which injuries were sustained to Ranjit Verma, who was travelling on the tractor and died on the spot. On issue Nos.2 & 3 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident offending tractor in question was duly insured with National Insurance Company Ltd., but since the deceased was travelling on the tractor in breach of terms of insurance policy, and it was being used for carrying of passengers, the same was being plied in contravention of terms of insurance policy. On issue No.4 it came to the conclusion that claimants are entitled to get Rs.2,95,000/- as compensation with interest @ 6% per annum and in view of findings of issue Nos.2 & 3 directed Insurance Company to make payment of compensation giving it right to recover from owner of offending tractor.

4. Heard Shri Ved Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Mansoor Ahmad, learned counsel for claimant-respondent Nos.1 & 2, Shri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record as well as lower court record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the findings of learned Tribunal that deceased, a laborer was travelling over the tractor in contravention of the terms of policy is wrong and incorrect; that the insurance Company has stated in its written statement that the deceased was travelling in the trolly attached with the tractor, as against which it was proved from evidence on record that deceased was going by sitting over the body/mudguard of tractor; that merely because trolly attached with the tractor, was not insured, the use of tractor may not be considered to be in contravention of terms of policy as trolly is not required to be insured under provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

6. In support of hi