A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 30 of the workmen's Compensation Act (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against an award dated 29. 1. 2003 passed by Commissioner, workmen's Compensation, District Dewas in Case No. 2/wcf of 2002. By impugned award, the Commissioner, workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), district Dewas has partly allowed the application made by claimants-appellants under section 10 of the Act and awarded compensation of Rs. 3,17,685 to the claimants for the death of one Nand Kishore. However, while passing the award, the commissioner exonerated the insurance company, non-applicant No. 2/respondent no. 2 from the liability arising out of the accident. It is against this award, the claimants have filed this appeal under section 30 of the Act. So, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: whether commissioner was justified in awarding a total compensation of Rs. 3,17,685 to the claimants for death of one Nand Kishore and if not, whether any case for enhancement is made out? The other question is: whether the Commissioner was justified in exonerating the insurance company from the liability arising out of the accident? ( 2 ) IT is a death case. One Nand Kishore aged around 25 years was working as a driver in the employment of non-applicant no. 1/respondent No. 1. On 22. 8. 2001, while Nand Kishore was driving tractor-trolley bearing No. MP 41-H 186 and MP 41-H 187 belonging to non-applicant No. 1 in discharge of his duty, he met with an accident. In fact, tractor-trolley turned turtle causing injuries to Nand Kishore who later succumbed to the injuries. It is this incident which gave rise to filing of claim application under section 10 of the Act by the claimants-appellants who are the legal representatives of deceased Nand Kishore seeking compensation for the death of nand Kishore. According to claimants, the accident in question occurred while the deceased was in the employment and it was related to his employment. In other words, it was pleaded that the accident in question arose out of the employment and during the course of employment thereby entitling the claimants to seek compensation. According to claimants, the accident in question occurred while the deceased was in the employment and it was related to his employment. In other words, it was pleaded that the accident in question arose out of the employment and during the course of employment thereby entitling the claimants to seek compensation. It was further averred that the vehicle in question was insured with the non-applicant No. 2 and owned by the non-applicant No. 1, i. e. , employer and hence, both are liable to suffer the liability arising out of the accident. The defence of the non-applicants in substance was that firstly accident did not arise out of employment. Secondly, the vehicle in question, i. e. , tractor-trolley was insured with non-applicant No. 2 only for agriculture purpose and since on the date of accident, it was being used for purpose other than the agriculture, i. e. , carrying boulders; no liability can be fastened upon the company, it being in breach of policy. Parties adduced evidence. As observed supra, the Commissioner allowed the claim petition in part but while accepting the partial defence of non-applicants exonerated the company from the liability. It is against this finding the claimants are in appeal. ( 3 ) HEARD Mr. G. K. Neema, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the insurance company, respondent No. 2. None for the respondent No. 1. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal in part and in consequence, modify the impugned award to the extent indicated infra. ( 5 ) IN our considered view, the finding insofar as it relates to exonerating of the insurance company is concerned; the same deserves to be reversed in favour of claimants. It is not correctly rendered on facts found by the Commissioner. True it is that the vehicle in question (tractor-trolley) was insured for use of agriculture purpose but in our view, the facts involved in the case do not show that it was not being used for agriculture purpose. In other words, carrying some boulders in tractor-trolley cannot be said to be purpose dehors the purpose for which the tractor-trolley was insured. In other words, carrying some boulders in tractor-trolley cannot be said to be purpose dehors the purpose for which the tractor-trolley was insured. If, therefore, deceased who was admittedly a driver of vehicle and was driving the vehicle by loading some stones/boulders in the trolley attached to the tractor, then in our opinion, the same does amount to a purpose falling within the meaning of expression 'agriculture purpose' and does not constitute any breach of condition of policy as alleged by insurer. The expression agriculture purpose is not defined anywhere and hence, one has to apply its normal meaning so as to advance the object of the beneficial legislation meant for awarding compensation to the victims rather than to extend very restricted meaning to the expression. In the very nature of things, if some stones/boulders are being carried in tractor-trolley then it goes to show that it is either related to agricultural operations or is capable of being used for agricultural operations as well. One can understand, if the trolley is being used for carrying gratuitous passenger or some commercial goods totally unconnected with agricultural operations. In such case, a plea of breach of condition of policy can be pressed in service by the insurer. Such is not the case here. ( 6 ) IN view of foregoing discussion, we do not agree to the finding and reasoning assigned by Commissioner for exonerating the insurance company from the liability arising out of the accident. We also do not agree to the submission of learned counsel for the insurance company that on facts found, the impugned finding be upheld by this court. Instead, while rejecting this submission having no merit, we reverse the impugned finding and hold that tractor-trolley in question was being used by the deceased for the same purpose for which the vehicle was insured, i. e. , agriculture and hence, liability arising out of accident can be fastened upon non-applicant No. 2, i. e. , the insurance company. Accordingly, impugned award to this extent is modified making the non-applicant No. 2, insurance company, also liable to suffer the award passed by Commissioner along with the non-applicant No. 1, i. e. , insured. ( 7 ) COMING to the question of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, we find no case to interfere in the impugned finding recorded by the Commissioner. ( 7 ) COMING to the question of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, we find no case to interfere in the impugned finding recorded by the Commissioner. In other words, taking into consideration the deceased's income, age, etc. , the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,17,685 cannot be faulted with. It is legal, proper and reasonable and hence deserves to be upheld. It is accordingly, upheld. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY and in view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified in favour of appellants to the extent indicated supra in para 6. Appeal partly allowed. .