JUDGMENT Jha, J. -- Both these appeals are disposed of by the common order. Misc. Appeal No. 138/99 is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and further praying that Insurance Company be held liable for payment of compensation and Misc. Appeal No. 44/99 is filed by the owner praying therein that owner is not liable to pay compensation and if there is any liability it is that of Insurance Company jointly and severally with the owner. Insurance Company submitted that in the facts of the case Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Pancham has hired a tractor bearing registration No. MP06 J 7522 for carrying stones in the trolly attached to the said tractor. On 23.5.1996 tractor was being driven by respondent No.2 Ramesh. Tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner and after a truck dashed against the front wheel, Pancham Singh fell on the ground from the trolly and stones of trolly fell upon him, which resulted into his death. In the reply owner has submitted that the driver of vehicle is not impleaded as a party and owner is not liable to pay compensation. Insurance Company submitted that the tractor was being used for hire and reward, therefore Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured and application against Insurance Company be dismissed. Claimants led evidence. AW1 Ramlesh has deposed that a truck dashed against the tractor, which resulted into fall of deceased from the tractor and his death. Similar evidence is given by A W 2 Shiv Singh. He admitted in his cross-examination that the driver of the tractor was driving the tractor slowly on his side, but another truck, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the front wheel of the tractor, which resulted into accident and Pancham fell from the tractor. In para 4 of the cross-examination he was unable to say whether deceased was run over by truck or trolly of the tractor. On this evidence counsel for owner of the tractor submitted that in the absence of any negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor, no liability can be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle. In the absence of any negligence owner is not liable to pay any compensation. On this evidence counsel for owner of the tractor submitted that in the absence of any negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor, no liability can be fastened upon the owner of the vehicle. In the absence of any negligence owner is not liable to pay any compensation. On the other hand, counsel for claimants submitted that the deceased is entitled for compensation under no fault liability which is Rs. 50,000/-. He submitted that an unknown truck has dashed against the tractor and he could not trace the names of driver and owner of the truck and they have not been impleaded as party, but claimants are entitled for compensation under no fault liability of Rs. 50,000/-. He submitted that he has moved an application for converting this application under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel for Insurance Company invited attention to the condition of policy and submitted that since tractor was driven in contravention of conditions of policy for hire and reward against the purpose for which vehicle was insured, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the damages. It is an admitted position that the vehicle was being driven for hire. Since this is an admitted position, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable under section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further contended that this application cannot be converted into section 163A as decided by this Court in the case of Smt. Guddibai v. Mishiral Ahilwar [2003(3) TAC 546]. This Court while considering the statutory provisions of section 163B the Act, has held that once an application under section 166 and 140 of the Act is filed thereafter application cannot be converted to section 163A. We have heard the counsel for the parties. As regards the application for converting this application under section 166 to 163-A is concerned, this application cannot be allowed, as applicants had filed initially an application under section 166 read with section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act and that final award under section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act for no fault liability is passed, therefore in the light of decision in the case of Smt. Guddibai (supra) this application is not maintainable and is dismissed. As regards the liability of Insurance Company is concerned the, matter is concluded by the Full Bench decision. As regards the liability of Insurance Company is concerned the, matter is concluded by the Full Bench decision. Since the vehicle was driven for hire, therefore under section 149(2) of the Act Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Now the question about the liability of the owner of the tractor is concerned. The owner of the vehicle is not liable to pay compensation, as it is not established that the driver of the tractor was running the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the truck, which dashed against the tractor was driver in a rash and negligent manner. The owner and driver of the truck are not impleaded as partly. Therefore, appellant cannot get any compensation except compensation towards no fault liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act. However, it is for the claimants to claim compensation against the owner and driver of the truck by filing fresh petition or applying under section 163 before competent authority. In the result, both the appeals fail and are dismissed. Compensation determined for no fault liability with interest by the Claims Tribunal is affirmed and it is held that owner of the tracter is liable to pay the compensation and Insurance Company is not liabie to pay the compensation. Misc. Appeal No. 138/99 is dismissed and Misc. Appeal No. 44/99 is partly allowed without any order as to costs.