JUDGMENT Fakhruddin, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order dated 30.7.93 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 34/91, whereby Rs. 68,000/- has been awarded in favour of respondent No. 1, Mahila Bhoga, mother of deceased Ranjeet who met with an accidental death on 23rd May, 1991. 2. The deceased Ranjeet was engaged as a Palledar (labour) doing the job of loading and un-loading with respondent No. 12, owner of the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor No. MP-06/6083. On the fateful day the tractor was being driven by respondent No. 13. The tractor was utilised for taking mustard crop from the field to warehouse. The trolley was attached with the tractor. The deceased was sitting on a mud-guard, when the accident occurred and he died. 3. Claimants-respondents 1 to 11 have filed the claim. Claims Tribunal found respondent No. 1, Mahila Bhoga, mother of the deceased alone entitled to get compensation of Rs. 68,000/-. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Malhotra submitted that the Tribunal held that the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently. The Tribunal after considering entire material on record in paras 8 & 9 of the judgment held that Ranjeet was sitting on the mud-guard of tractor. It was also held that the tractor trolley was being used for loading-un-loading agricultural produce and the deceased Ranjeet was working as a Palledar at the relevant time for loading and un-loading goods and as such he was sitting on the tractor. Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to Section 2(46) which is as under: "trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Mr. Malhotra further referred to Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles. It reads as under: (1) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the registration of trailers as they apply to the registration of any other motor vehicle. (2) The registration mark assigned to a trailer shall be displayed in such manner on the side of the drawing vehicle as may be prescribed by the Central Government. It reads as under: (1) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the registration of trailers as they apply to the registration of any other motor vehicle. (2) The registration mark assigned to a trailer shall be displayed in such manner on the side of the drawing vehicle as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (3) No person shall drive a motor vehicle to which a trailer is or trailers are attached unless the registration mark of the motor vehicle so driven is displayed on the trailer or on the last trailer in the train, as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. He contended that a separate registration of trolley is must. In this case, the trolley was not separately registered nor insured therefore, the claimants are not entitle to get anything from the Insurance Company. There is no force in the contention of Mr. Malhotra. The accident did not occur from trolley. There is evidence of P.W. 2 Dauji, which has been discussed by the learned Claims Tribunal in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Judgment that deceased Ranjeet Kumar was sitting on the mud-guard of tractor. The finding that deceased was sitting on mud-guard of the tractor is borne out from the record and in view of this the accident occurred not from trolley but accident occurred while deceased was sitting on the mudguard of tractor. In this view of the matter, whether the trolley was registered or not and was insured or not has no relevancy for the decision of this case. 5. Mr. Malhotra further referred to Ex. D/1, which is said to be a policy issued by the appellant's-Company. It says that the vehicle was insured only for agricultural and forestry purposes. The attention was specifically drawn to portion B to B in Ex. D/1. Portion B to B is quoted below: "Use for Agricultural and Forestry purposes only". The Policy does not cover: (I) Use for hire or reward or for racing pacemaking reliability trial or speed testing. (II) Use whilst drawing greater number of trailers is all than is permitted by law. The tractor is a vehicle which is used mostly for agricultural and forestry purposes. The Policy does not cover: (I) Use for hire or reward or for racing pacemaking reliability trial or speed testing. (II) Use whilst drawing greater number of trailers is all than is permitted by law. The tractor is a vehicle which is used mostly for agricultural and forestry purposes. In the instant case the use of the tractor was also made for taking out the produce i.e. the mustard crop from the field to the warehouse. The use of tractor was, therefore, in accordance with the policy. Ranjeet who was a Palledar (labour) was also there engaged as a labour to load and un-load the agricultural produce. In the opinion of this Court the use of the tractor was permissible and in accordance with the policy Ex. D/1. 6. Mr. Malhotra then contended that deceased Ranjeet was there as a passenger. His risk cannot be covered. The Claims Tribunal found that deceased Ranjeet was at that time working as a Talledar', infact he was there as an agricultural labour. The agricultural produce are required to be loaded and unloaded and if a person is engaged in that job, it cannot be said that he is passenger. In that view of the matter there is no force in the contention of Mr. Malhotra that the deceased was a passenger. 7. Mr. Malhotra then contended that policy does not cover use for hire or reward or for racing pacemaking reliability trial or speed testing and for use whilst drawing greater number of trailers is all than is permitted by law. There is no dispute regarding above contention but the argument is misconceived. The case in hand is quite different, here the deceased was an agricultural labour being a 'Palledar' for loading and un-loading of the produce i.e., the mustard crop. The Palledar was engaged for this purpose and that is why deceased Ranjeet was there. 8. Shri Malhotra relied on 1993 ACJ 586 Sajjan Singh Laxman Singh and Ors. v. Phoolibai and Ors. to contend that the vehicle was not being used for the purpose for which it is insured. In that case tractor was used in breach of condition of policy and therefore the Insurance Company was not held liable. 8. Shri Malhotra relied on 1993 ACJ 586 Sajjan Singh Laxman Singh and Ors. v. Phoolibai and Ors. to contend that the vehicle was not being used for the purpose for which it is insured. In that case tractor was used in breach of condition of policy and therefore the Insurance Company was not held liable. In Sajjan Singh's case (supra) it was the tractor and trolley which was used for transporting manure for commercial purposes at the time of accident whereas facts of the present case are quite distinguishable here. It is the case of product and produce which was taken from the field to warehouse. Therefore, this case is not applicable. Mr. Malhotra then relied on a decision reported in 1994 ACJ 352 , Onkarlal Garg and Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. In Onkarlal's case it was the gratuitous passenger who died when the tractor in which he was travelling turned turtle. It was contended in this case that the policy of insurance was a comprehensive one and the risk of gratuitous passenger was covered. It was held that policy limits the use of tractor for agricultural purpose did not meant to carry any passenger, so that Insurance Company was not held liable. It was a case where there was a gratuitous passenger and in that view the Court held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. In our case deceased Ranjeet was not sitting as a gratuitous passenger, he was sitting as as Palledar (labour) who had to take the mustard crop from field to warehouse. Therefore, this case is also distinguishable. 9. Mr. Malhotra further relied upon 1989 Vol. II ACC 35 Bhanwar Singh v. Gatubai and Ors. In Bhanwar Singh's case the driver of the vehicle was not holding a licence to drive the vehicle and the deceased was travelling as a passenger and in that view of the matter it was held that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, while in the case in hand, the deceased was not a passenger but was an agricultural labour and driver possessed valid driving licence. Thus the above reported case is also distinguishable from our case. 10. Mr. Malhotra also relied on 1994 JLJ 515 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay and Ors. This case related to interim award. Thus the above reported case is also distinguishable from our case. 10. Mr. Malhotra also relied on 1994 JLJ 515 , New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay and Ors. This case related to interim award. The tractor and trolley involved in the accident were insured only for agricultural purposes. There is no insurance for carrying the passengers on the trolley and it was held that once the Insurance Company is able to show that the term of policy has been breached or violated interim award cannot be made against the Insurance Company. Now, here the case is different. The entire evidence has been taken. Findings have been recorded and thereafter it has been held that the deceased Ranjeet was engaged as a Palledar i.e., a labour for loading and un-loading crops. Therefore, all the cases cited above by the learned Counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and they are not applicable in this case. 11. Mr. B.D. Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the use of tractor-trolley is permissible for carrying labourers and the members of the family of agriculturists. He referred to 1985 M.P. Law Times Vol. 27, P.145 Rule 132, which is quoted as under: In the said rules, in Rule 111, for Sub-rule (7), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rules (1) and (2), but subject to the provision of Sub-rule (5), such tractor-trailer other than those registered in the name of Industrial Organisations, Municipal Corporation, Municipal Committee, Local Institutions, Water Supply Institution, Electric Supply Institution, Mining Institution and Non-Agricultural Co-operative Societies and the Unladen Weight of which does not exceed 7,500 k.gs. may be used for the following purposes: (i) For carrying labourers and the members of family of agriculturist for the purpose of Agriculture or any purpose connected with agriculture including sale and purchase of articles of agriculture. (ii) For carrying persons at the time of Mela, Markets, Religious Function, Marriages and other ceremonial occasions: Provided that the number of persons so carried will not exceed 20 at a time. In our case the mustard crop was taken from the field which is an agricultural produce and the deceased was sitting there as a Palledar i.e., labour, therefore, the conditions of the above Rule 132 is well satisfied in our case. It cannot be said that the tractor is used for commercial purposes. 12. In our case the mustard crop was taken from the field which is an agricultural produce and the deceased was sitting there as a Palledar i.e., labour, therefore, the conditions of the above Rule 132 is well satisfied in our case. It cannot be said that the tractor is used for commercial purposes. 12. The learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants further relied on 1989 ACJ 400 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ansuya and Ors. It was held in the case that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for the death of a labourer carried on the tractor-trailer for loading/unloading goods carried in it. It was held that the tractor towed with trailer would mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for the purpose of carriage of goods and therefore it is a goods vehicle. When the tractor-trailer is insured for the purpose of agricultural operations carrying the coolies for loading or un-loading is incidental to the purpose of agricultural operations and is not prohibited under the Rules. M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1974 has been amended and the notification have been published on 30th of September, 1985. In the instant case the accident occurred when the Ranjeet, the deceased Palledar was sitting on mud-guard. Ranjeet who died was an agricultural labour. He has taken mustard crop from the field to warehouse. This included in the use of agricultural purposes. 13. The learned Counsel for the respondents further relied on 1990 ACJ 54 Sajid Mian v. Ganga and Ors. In Sajid Mian's case three persons had died while they are sitting in the trolley attached to a tractor and the trolley overturned due to the negligent driving of the tractor. Insurance Company disputed its liability contending that trolley was not registered separately under the Act, yet it was held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. It was further held that trolley can only move with the help of the tractor and the tractor was insured. In the case in hand the tractor was also insured and the driver possesses valid licence. 14. Mr. Verma, further relied upon 1992 ACJ 266, Jagdish and Ors. v. Pokhar and Ors.. In this case that Insurance Company contended that the deceased was a trespasser and disputed its liability. In the case in hand the tractor was also insured and the driver possesses valid licence. 14. Mr. Verma, further relied upon 1992 ACJ 266, Jagdish and Ors. v. Pokhar and Ors.. In this case that Insurance Company contended that the deceased was a trespasser and disputed its liability. It was held that deceased was employed for loading/un-loading on the tractor and was travelling on the tractor when he fell down and was crushed to death, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation because the deceased was sitting on the vehicle in pursuance of contract of employment with the owner of the vehicle. The facts of this case are similar to the case in hand. In the present case the deceased was also employed for loading/un-loading mustard crop. He was a Palledar. The tractor is used for agricultural purposes. 15. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company has no merit, it is therefore, dismissed with cost. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-, if certified.