P. C. VERMA, B. C. KANDPAL, JJ. ( 1 ) THE present appeal under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the judgment and the award dated 6. 8. 2004, passed by M. A. C. T. /additional District Judge/third F. T. C. , Udham singh Nagar, in M. A. C. P. No. 98 of 2003, balbir Kaur v. Fahim Ahmad, by which the claimants were awarded compensation of Rs. 3,12,000 along with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum payable by the opposite party/appellant, United India insurance Co. Ltd. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 6. 3. 2003 at about 2. 30 p. m. Atma Singh deceased along with his son Satnam Singh was going to Tada ujjain from Kashipur Chauraha and as soon as they reached near Malgodam on station Road, the driver of tractor No. UP 21-H 4596 coming from the side of Chauraha rashly and negligently, dashed Atma singh from behind due to which Atma singh was seriously wounded and died at the spot. As per the claim petition, the age of the deceased Atma Singh at the time of accident was 49 years and he was doing the work of raj mistr. From the work of raj mistri the deceased was earning Rs. 3,600 per month. It was also alleged that besides this the deceased also used to do the work of milk-dairy and was earning Rs. 1,000 per month. The claimants also alleged that they were dependent on the income of the deceased and they have no other source of income, hence they claimed Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation in lieu of death of Atma singh. ( 3 ) OPPOSITE parties/respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed joint written statement before the tribunal. They denied the averments of the claim petition for want of knowledge and also denied the accident by the tractor. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending tractor was having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the tractor was insured with United India insurance Co. Ltd. The offending tractor had valid documents and in case, if any, liability for payment of compensation is fixed, then the same will be of the insurance company. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending tractor was having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the tractor was insured with United India insurance Co. Ltd. The offending tractor had valid documents and in case, if any, liability for payment of compensation is fixed, then the same will be of the insurance company. ( 4 ) THE opposite party/appellant, insurer of the offending tractor has filed the written statement and denied the allegations of the claim petition for want of knowledge. It was also alleged that the driver of the tractor was driving it rashly and negligently and due to which the accident occurred. It was also alleged that the driver had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The insurer also pleaded that the deceased was aged more than 50 years at the time of the accident. The insurance company denied its liability to pay the compensation. ( 5 ) TRIBUNAL on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues. Claimants in support to their claim produced Jagir singh, PW 1 and Balbir Kaur, PW 2. They also filed copy of first information report, copy of post-mortem report of deceased atma Singh and the charge-sheet submitted in the criminal case lodged with regard to this accident against the driver of the offending tractor. However, opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence in the claim petition. The owner of the offending tractor filed copy of the insurance policy, registration certificate and driving licence of the driver. ( 6 ) TRIBUNAL having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing evidence on record allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 3,12,000 as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from 8. 4. 2003, the date of presentation of claim petition, till the date of recovery of the compensation amount payable by the appellant insurance company. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved the opposite party/ insurance company has come up in appeal before this court. ( 8 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. 2003, the date of presentation of claim petition, till the date of recovery of the compensation amount payable by the appellant insurance company. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved the opposite party/ insurance company has come up in appeal before this court. ( 8 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 9 ) THE sole point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the insurance company in this case has liability to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the M. A. C. T. when there is breach of policy of the insurance pertaining to the offending tractor. ( 10 ) THE record of the case reveals that the offending tractor was loaded with sand at the time of the accident and it hit Atma singh who succumbed to injuries. It also reveals from the evidence available on record that the offending tractor No. UP 21-H 4596 was being driven rashly and negligently and on account of the same it hit Atma Singh who died on account of the injuries sustained by him. ( 11 ) AS far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the age of the deceased was between 45 and 50 years at the time of his death. Tribunal has assessed the annual income of the deceased as Rs. 24,000. The deceased was working as a labourer and he had also 2-3 buffaloes. The deceased had also been selling the milk of the buffaloes. Tribunal adopted multiplier of 13 keeping in view the age of the deceased and then awarded a total amount of compensation of rs. 3,12,000 along with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment. ( 12 ) WE do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in calculating the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. ( 13 ) NOW the main dispute in this case is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal or not. The Tribunal has fixed the liability of insurance company,. e. , united India Insurance Co. Ltd. , for making the payment pertaining to the amount of compensation. ( 13 ) NOW the main dispute in this case is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal or not. The Tribunal has fixed the liability of insurance company,. e. , united India Insurance Co. Ltd. , for making the payment pertaining to the amount of compensation. ( 14 ) THE record reveals that the tractor, which hit the deceased Atma Singh who succumbed to injuries, was loaded with sand at the time of the accident. Therefore, the relevant question for determination in this case would be whether the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes at the time of the accident and in case if the tractor was not being used for agricultural purposes then certainly there is a breach of the condition of policy on the part of the owner of the tractor. ( 15 ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC), has held as under: " (14) Furthermore, a tractor is not even a goods carriage. The 'goods carriage' has been defined in section 2 (14) to mean 'any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods' whereas 'tractor' has been defined in section 2 (44) to mean 'a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller'. The 'trailer' has been defined in section 2 (46) to mean 'any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a sidecar, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. (15) A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage' contained in section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. Tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of the 'goods carriage' as contained in section 2 (14) of Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decision of this court in Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and other decisions following the same. . . " ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court it is quite clear that in the instant case the tractor in question was loaded with sand, therefore, it can be safely inferred that the offending tractor at the time of the accident was not being used for agricultural purposes. There is no iota of evidence available on the record which may suggest that the tractor fitted with a trailer was also meant to be used for other purposes and it was also registered for other purposes. In case if the tractor was being used for transporting the sand it would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods or for other business activities. The tractor is certainly not even a goods carriage as has been defined in section 2 (14) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we are of the definite opinion that the owner of the offending tractor has committed the breach of condition of insurance policy. It is true that offending tractor was insured with appellant United india Insurance Co. In view of the aforesaid circumstances we are of the definite opinion that the owner of the offending tractor has committed the breach of condition of insurance policy. It is true that offending tractor was insured with appellant United india Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of the accident but as the offending tractor in question was transporting the sand at the time of the accident hence there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy and the insurance company cannot be said to be liable for making the payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal. However in case if the Tribunal has directed the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants the same is to be modified up to the extent that the insurance company shall have a right to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending tractor. ( 17 ) WITH the aforesaid observation, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 6. 8. 2004, passed by M. A. C. T. /addl. District Judge/third f. T. C. , Udham Singh Nagar, in M. A. C. P. No. 98 of 2003, is modified up to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the claimants shall be paid by the insurance company but the insurance company shall have a right to recover the same from the owner of the offending tractor. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. --- *** ---