JUDGMENT Mst. Nathiabai and her two sons P.W.s 2 and 3 were riding on a tractor belonging to the revision petitioner on 17.4.1985. On account of the jolt of the tractor, Nathiabai fell down and was run over by the rear wheel of the tractor. She was taken to the hospital but succumbed to the injuries. Her husband, four sons and four daughters filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. The claim was resisted by them on several grounds. The Tribunal upheld the claimants' case and passed an award for Rs. 46,800/- on the driver, owner and insurer. The Insurer alone filed an appeal contending that the insurer was not liable since policy was restricted to accidents in the course of agricultural operation and did not cover risk to passengers, the passengers are not allowed on tractor and the driver had no licence. This Court found that the Tribunal had not adverted to this aspect raised by the insurer and set aside the award and remanded the case for re-trial after deciding issue No. 3 afresh relating to liability of insurer. After remand, the Tribunal held that the insurer was not liable and passed award against the driver and the owner of the vehicle, exonerating the insurer. The owner has filed this appeal. The first contention urged relates to the exoneration by the Tribunal of the insurer. The policy shows that it covers liability against risk on account of accidents in the course of agricultural operations. It is not the case of the revision petitioner that this accident took place in the course of agricultural operation as the accident took place when the tractor was being taken along the pakka road with passengers. Therefore, the exoneration of the insurer is justified. The next contention relates to quantification of the compensation. It is contended that Mst. Nathiabai was attending to househeld affairs. The Tribunal took the view that if her services are to be replaced by a hired servant, that would cost about Rs. 500/- per month and awarded compensation estimating the value for the loss of services at Rs. 300/- per month and taking the multiplier to be 13. She was aged 45 years at that time. The Tribunal took the view that if her services are to be replaced by a hired servant, that would cost about Rs. 500/- per month and awarded compensation estimating the value for the loss of services at Rs. 300/- per month and taking the multiplier to be 13. She was aged 45 years at that time. The husband was aged 50 years and the children were aged between 20 to 26 years at that time. No separate award was made on account of compensation of loss of love and affection for the children or for loss for consortium for the husband. The amount awarded does not appear to be unreasonable. In any event, the same amount had been awarded by the Tribunal initially and that was not challenged by the owner of the vehicle at that stage. I find no ground to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal but without costs.