Judgment ( 1. ) -THIS appeal has been preferred by the owner aggrieved by an award dated 27. 4. 2004 passed by Third additional Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Sidhi in Claim Case No. 14 of 2004. ( 2. ) CLAIMANT Kamta Prasad filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of amputation of right leg in an accident dated 9. 7. 1996 by the tiller owned by one anand Bahadur Singh, operated by Pawan kumar Singh and insured for agricultural operation. The claimant was working in his own field. He was called by Pawan Kumar singh. When Pawan Kumar Singh wanted to start the tiller, Kamta Prasad fell down, his right leg was entangled in the cultivator, it was badly crushed, ultimately it had to be amputated. He was operated upon in medical College, Banaras. He remained there till 11. 10. 1996, thus he has become incapacitated. Rs. 11,18,000 was claimed as compensation. The vehicle was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 3. ) THE owner, in reply, denied the liability to make payment of compensation. The claimant used to work as a teacher in a non-government institution, he was not an agriculturist. The owner is an advocate, he is not having any tiller on which the claimant could have sat. There was no negligence on the part of Pawan Kumar singh as such he was not liable. The vehicle was not a tractor but was a power tiller having 12 hp diesel engine. There was no place to sit in the tiller. For ploughing the land one has to walk in the field. Pawan kumar Singh used to look after the power tiller. As a matter of fact the claimant without knowledge of Pawan Kumar Singh started the power tiller. He was not able to control it and accidentally his leg got entangled in the cultivator. Accident was the outcome of negligence of the claimant himself. No reply was preferred by Pawan Kumar singh. The insurer, in reply, also denied the facts and the liability to make the payment of compensation. Claimant himself jumped from the tractor that was the cause of accident. No permanent disability was incurred. There was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, hence claim petition be dismissed. ( 4. ) THE Claims Tribunal has held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of Pawan Kumar Singh. Claimant himself jumped from the tractor that was the cause of accident. No permanent disability was incurred. There was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, hence claim petition be dismissed. ( 4. ) THE Claims Tribunal has held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent act of Pawan Kumar Singh. Right leg of the claimant had to be amputated resulting into permanent disability to the extent of 70 per cent. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,36,000 along with the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The insurer has been exonerated from making the payment of compensation on the ground that Pawan Kumar Singh was not having driving licence. Dissatisfied with the award this appeal has been preferred by the owner and his son Pawan Kumar Singh. ( 5. ) MR. D. S. Baghel, the learned counsel appearing for appellants has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in law in exonerating the insurer as power tiller was in the agricultural land involved in the agricultural operation, there was no sitting arrangement on the power tiller. It was required to be operated while standing in the agricultural land. The method and manner in which the accident has taken place indicated that power tiller was not driven. There was no necessity to hold the licence to operate the power tiller while walking or standing in the agricultural land. He has placed reliance on a decision in Secretary, pattanakkad Panchayat Scheduled Caste co-operative Society Ltd. v. Ponnappan, air 2004 Ker 46 , in which Kerala High court has observed that though the power tiller is a motor vehicle as defined in section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it does not fall into class of vehicle for which driving licence was necessary, as vehicle itself does not provide any seat for accommodating a driver. Insurer cannot escape its liability on the ground that person operating power tiller did not possess valid driving licence. He has further submitted that power tiller is not a class of vehicle mentioned in section 10 (2) as such no driving licence was necessary to operate the power tiller. ( 6. ) MR. N. S. Ruprah, the learned counsel with Mr. He has further submitted that power tiller is not a class of vehicle mentioned in section 10 (2) as such no driving licence was necessary to operate the power tiller. ( 6. ) MR. N. S. Ruprah, the learned counsel with Mr. Ajay Gupta appearing on behalf of the insurer has submitted that it was necessary to possess the driving licence to operate the power tiller. It was a motor vehicle. The claimant was sitting on the power tiller. It was not permissible to sit on the power tiller. There was no seat for that purpose. Accident was caused due to his own negligence, thus it was not permissible to the claimant to claim compensation from the insurer, thus liability has been rightly saddled on the owner and his son. ( 7. ) THE first question for consideration is whether the licence was required to drive the power tiller in the agricultural field? section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with the necessity for driving licence. Section 4 deals with the age limit in connection with driving of motor vehicles. Section 6 deals with the restriction on the holding of driving licences. Section 10 provides that every learners licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by Central Government. Sub-section (2) of section 10 provides that a learners licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. The power tiller was specified in Central motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1989) by insertion of clause (v) in rule 2 (u) in the year 2005. The power tiller was specified thus: " (v) power tiller means an agricultural machinery used for soil preparation having a single axle in which the direction of travel and its control for field operation is performed by the operator walking behind it. This equipment may or may not have a riding attachment and when coupled to a trailer can be used for the transportation of goods. This equipment may or may not have a riding attachment and when coupled to a trailer can be used for the transportation of goods. The maximum speed of the power tiller when coupled to a trailer, shall not exceed 22 km/h. The maximum haulage capacity of the power tiller coupled to a trailer shall not exceed 1. 5 tons. " It was published in Gazette of India on 16. 9. 2005. Section 10 (2) (j) provides that licence is also required for a motor vehicle of specified description apart from the description given from clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Act. Description has been specified with effect from 16. 9. 2005. In our opinion as per the requirement of section 10 (2), there was no necessity of obtaining a licence as, as on the date of the accident the vehicle was not specified. Motor vehicle of specified description required licence, however, a power tiller description was not specified under the Act or the Rules on the date of accident. The power tiller while being operated in the agricultural field, its operation is performed by the operator walking behind it. It was not attached at the time of the accident with a trailer. When it is attached with a trailer, it can be used as a vehicle for transportation of goods, however, it was used at the relevant time for field operation. Thus in our opinion, at the relevant time no licence was required as per the Rules of 1989. ( 8. ) WHEN the accident took place in 1996, description of power tiller was not specified in the Act. It is also clear that there was no seat on the power tiller. To plough the agricultural land one has to keep the handle in his hand and it has to be pushed while walking down, thus we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the driving licence was not necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case as unfolded in the evidence, to plough the agricultural land. Claimant has stated that when he was working in his own agricultural field, he was called by Pawan Kumar Singh. Pawan kumar Singh was operating the power tiller, it used to be operated by hands. Pawan kumar Singh had asked to catch hold of the handle. Claimant has stated that when he was working in his own agricultural field, he was called by Pawan Kumar Singh. Pawan kumar Singh was operating the power tiller, it used to be operated by hands. Pawan kumar Singh had asked to catch hold of the handle. While he was still catching hold of one of the handles owing to jerk his right leg got entangled in the cultivator and same had been amputated. After Pawan kumar had started the tiller when he went few steps ahead while catching hold of the handle, he fell down due to jerk. He has denied the suggestion that he himself started the tiller and it was going in a ditch consequently his leg was entangled in the cultivator. Pawan Kumar Singh has not entered into the witness-box. Anand Bahadur singh has stated that the claimant himself started the power tiller that was the cause of accident but he was not present when the accident took place, thus his statement is not reliable. Pawan Kumar Singh has not been examined. Claimant has stated that while he was in his own field, he was called by Pawan Kumar Singh. Pawan Kumar applied the gear consequently he fell down due to jerk. Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case it could not be said that claimant started the power tiller on his own and was himself negligent. Since no licence was required to operate the power tiller in the field for the purpose of ploughing the land at the relevant time as its description was not specified licence was not necessary. ( 9. ) HIGH Court of Kerala in Secretary, pattanakkad Panchayat Scheduled Caste co-operative Society Ltd. v. Ponnappan, air 2004 Kerala 46, has also opined that though power tiller was a motor vehicle but no driving licence was necessary. There was no seat for accommodating the driver. The counsel for respondent was not able to point out that a driving licence was required to operate a power tiller in an agricultural land. Thus we are of the opinion that there was no breach of the policy in the instant case. Thus we hold that the insurer, owner and driver are liable jointly and severally to make the payment of compensation. ( 10. ) RESULTANTLY, the appeal is allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. No costs. Appeal partly allowed.