The violation of insurance policy terms and conditions can absolve the insurance company from liability to pay compensation in a motor accident claim.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panna in Claim case No. 5 of 1994 dated 20. 3. 1997.

( 2 ) ACCIDENT took place on 3. 1. 1993. Tractor-trolley, owned by Phool Singh, driven by Ramlal, met with accident. According to the claimants it happened due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley by the driver. Tractor-trolley was carrying agricultural produce belonging to the owner. It is alleged that trolley tilted and the deceased fell into a ditch and was hit by tyre of the trolley. He died instantaneously. Compensation of Rs. 13,64,000 is claimed since family was dependent on him being the sole bread-earner.

( 3 ) INSURANCE company alleges that the tractor-trolley was being used in violation of insurance policy since it was carrying passengers and goods of other persons. As per insurance policy it could not carry any passenger, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Other respondents said that the occupants of the trolley got into it despite refusal by owner and driver. It is admitted that it was full of grain items. Consequently, they are not liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place as alleged. It also found that the deceased died in this accident and the vehicle was insured. It also found that the deceased did not get into the vehicle despite protest by owner and driver. Accordingly, award of Rs. 1,25,000 is made with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Owner of tractor-trolley has challenged this award through this appeal. Claimants have also filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation.

( 4 ) MR. P. K. Jaiswal submits that Claims tribunal has erroneously held the owner responsible for payment of compensation. As a matter of fact, accident was not the result of overloading of vehicle by persons and grain items, therefore, liability to pay compensation should not be thrusted upon the appellant. Our attention is drawn to supreme Court decision in B. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1996 ACJ 1178 (SC ). Another decision on which reliance is placed is Nagashetty v. United india Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 1441 (SC ). Both the above decisions have been examined. They are not attracted to the peculiar facts of the case. Evidence clearly suggests that tractor-trolley was owned by the appellant. It is insured for agriculture which would include carriage of agricultural items to the market also. It does not permit carriage of passengers with goods, this being case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prior to coming into force of Act 54 of 1994 from 14. 11. 1994. Therefore, there is prohibition on carriage of passengers with goods. Consequently, there is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy in this case, as such, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.

( 5 ) THE question is whether claimants have been awarded just compensation in this case. Deceased has been found to be 45 years old at the time of accident by claims Tribunal. This being finding of fact should not be disturbed unless there is cogent and convincing evidence to the contrary. Claimants have tried to demonstrate that the deceased was earning Rs. 150-200 per day or Rs. 10,000-12,000 per annum or Rs. 10-12 per day. However, Claims tribunal has rightly said that in such a case his income has to be determined on the basis of minimum wages payable at the relevant time. Accordingly, the deceased should be earning Rs. 30 per day, Rs. 900 per month and after deducting '/3rd as his personal expenditure, monthly dependency comes to Rs. 600 and Rs. 7,200 per annum, applying the multiplier of 15, amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,08,000 plus rs. 16,500 (Rs. 7,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium to wife, Rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 as funeral expenses ). Claimants are held entitled to compens