Mishra, J. -- 1. The appeal has been preferred by the owner and driver aggrieved by Award dated 29.6.2004 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mauganj, District-Rewa in Claim Case No. 33/2001.

2. Claimants/respondents 1 to 7 preferred claim petition on account of death of Shyamlal who met with an accident on 4.6.2001, he was travelling in tractor trolley. Vehicle was driven by Shravan Patel, it was owned by Arun Patel and insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. The claimants submitted that the deceased was coming back in the tractor trolley after administering fertilizers in his agricultural field, deceased was shoe mendor, he used to sell shoes in the market, compensation of Rs. 57,60,000 was claimed.

3. Owner denied the factum of accident in his reply, other facts were also denied. It was contended that vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., liability, if any, was required to be borne by the insurer.

4. The insurer in its reply denied the liability to make payment of compensation, it was specifically pleaded that in the tractor trolley marriage party was being carried at the time of accident. Thus, there was violation of terms and conditions of policy as tractor was insured for the purpose of agriculture use only, risk was not covered for such user within the purview of the policy. Driver was not-having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle.

5. The Tribunal has found that there was violation of policy as at the time of accident in the tractor trolley the marriage party was being carried, thus, insurer has been exonerated. Compensation of Rs. 1,73,000 has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. Dissatisfied with the same, owner and driver have come up in appeal.

6. Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for appellant has submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that marriage party was being carried at the time of accident has not been established by satisfactory evidence. The evidence adduced on behalf of respondents has been wrongly relied upon. He has further submitted that lodger of FIR has not been examined, thus, facts mentioned in the FIR that marriage party had been carried has not been established, thus, finding of Tribunal deserves to be set aside. He has also placed reliance on Rule 97 of Motor Vehicle Rules as applicable in M.P. which permits carrying of Barat in the trolley. Thus, he has submitted that user being permitted under the rules, it has to be considered even for the purpose of insurance policy, the claimant was a third party as such' k is covered under section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act.

7. Shri Ajit Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Insurer has submitted that there was violation of policy, it was not necessary to prove the FIR and examination of its lodger as it was a document of claimants, once they have filed it and document has been exhibited, it has been rightly taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Apart from that there is other evidence on record indicating that tractor trolley was being used for the purpose of transporting marriage party which was not covered under the insurance policy.

8. First we consider whether marriage party was being carried at the time of accident, though it has been stated by Terasi (CW 1), widow of deceased, that her husband was coming back after administering fertilizer from the agricultural field, at that time he met with an accident, she has denied the suggestion made in cross-examination that he was coming back from the marriage party. Kedar (CW 2) has also supported the version of CW 1 and has also denied the suggestion made in the cross-examination that marriage party was being carried. Sarvjeet Singh Jammu (NAW 1) has stated that enquiry was conducted by the insurer, it was found in the enquiry that marriage party was being carried in the tractor trolley at the relevant time, deceased wa