ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 29.4.2006 passed by I MACT, Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 102/2005 whereby the claim case filed by appellants was allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 2,97,500/- has been awarded and respondent No. 3 was exonerated on the ground that the offending vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose only, the present appeal is filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that appellants filed a claim case before the learned tribunal alleging that deceased/Dilip Singh was travelling in a tractor attached with trolley bearing registration No. MP-14/A/5641 on 20.7.2004 along with the goods for its safety. It was alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. Further case of the appellants was that by the time when the offending tractor reached to the premises of Krishi Upaj Mandi at Mandsaur, at that time because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 the offending trolley was turtled down with the result Dilip Singh died on the spot. In the claim case compensation was claimed from the respondents. The claim case was contested by respondent No. 3 on the ground that offending tractor was insured with respondent No. 3 for agricultural purpose and trolley was not insured. It was alleged that since the deceased/Dilip Singh was a fare paying passenger and the vehicle was not being used for agricultural purpose, therefore, respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned tribunal allowed the claim case and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,97,500/- for which break-up is as under : towards loss of dependency Rs. 2,88,000/- towards funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of love and affection Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate Rs. 2,500/- Total : Rs. 2,97,500/- 3. Learned tribunal further observed that since offending vehicle was insured for agricultural purpose, therefore, respondent No. 3 stands exonerated. Being aggrieved by the award passed by learned tribunal, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side which ought to have been assessed as Rs. 100/- per day as deceased was having agricultural land and was also barber by profession. Being aggrieved by the award passed by learned tribunal, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side which ought to have been assessed as Rs. 100/- per day as deceased was having agricultural land and was also barber by profession. It is submitted that multiplier of 16 has been applied while looking to the age of deceased and also the age of appellant No. 1 multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied. It is submitted that deduction towards personal expenses is on higher side and on other heads also the amount awarded is on lower side. It is submitted that since the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle for safety of goods, therefore, there was no justification in exonerating the respondent No. 3. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the amount awarded by learned tribunal is just and proper. So far as exoneration of respondent No. 3 is concerned, it is submitted that deceased was travelling in a trolley as fare paying passenger which was not insured with respondent No. 3, therefore, learned tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No. 3. 6. From perusal of record, it appears that income of deceased has been assessed @ Rs. 75/- per day. Deceased was barber and also agriculturist. It appears that income of deceased ought to have been assessed @ Rs. 100/- per day. So far as application of multiplier of 16 is concerned, it appears that looking to the age of appellant No. 1 the multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. In the facts and circumstances of the case, appellants are entitled for the following amount : towards loss of dependency Rs. 4,08,000/- towards funeral expenses Rs. 2,000/- towards loss of love and affection Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of estate Rs. 5,000/- Total : Rs. 4,35,000/- 7. So far as liability of respondent No. 3/insurance company is concerned, Mr. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case where the person travelling in a goods vehicle along with the goods, insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. For this contention reliance was placed on a decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case where the person travelling in a goods vehicle along with the goods, insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. For this contention reliance was placed on a decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, reported in [ 2004 (2) JLJ 127 = 2004 ACJ 428], wherein amended provisions of section 147 (1) (as amended in 1994) were taken into consideration by the Hon'ble apex Court and it was held that passengers carried for higher or reward or gratuitously in a goods vehicle is covered and insurance company is not liable for death of any such passenger. It is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorised representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorised representative would not be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor any premium was paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. 8. Further reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Kesari Bai v. Dhanna, reported in 2007 ACJ 1550 , wherein a Divisional Bench of this Court has held that in a case of death of a person travelling in goods vehicle along with his bags of wheat, it was held that Insurance Company is liable. 9. Reliance was also placed on a decision of Divisional Bench of this Court in the matter of Umrao Singh v. Bharatlal, reported in [ 2007 (II) MPWN 108 = 2007 (2) ACCD 760], wherein appellant was travelling in offending vehicle as owner of goods or agent of owner or as labourer, it was held that insurer is liable. 10. Reliance was also placed on a decision of Allahabad High Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. 10. Reliance was also placed on a decision of Allahabad High Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Har Kunwar, reported in 2007 ACJ 2249 , wherein person travelling in tractor-trolley along with his food grains for the purpose of selling in market fell down and sustained fatal injures, it was held that Insurance Company is liable as deceased was a genuine passenger travelling with his goods in a goods vehicle. 11. Learned counsel submits that it is true that agricultural product were not seized by the police but that makes no difference. For this contention learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Umrao Singh v. Bharatlal, reported in [ 2007 (II) MPWN 108 = 2007 (2) ACCD 760], wherein it was held that in a case of accident, what is normally seized is the motor vehicle and, therefore, in absence of any documentary or oral evidence, we are unable to appreciate the argument of learned counsel for respondent that evidence to the effect that agricultural produce was seized by the Police, was not produced before the tribunal. Under these circumstances, merely on account of the failure to obtain police documents which mayor may not contain seizure of the goods that were carried in the trolley, we do not find any substance in said contention. Under section 147 (1) (b) (i) of the Act the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of owner of the goods or his authorized representative. 12. Learned counsel further submits that use of the tractor for agricultural purpose also includes harvesting, taking of crops, threshing ground, to godown or the Mandi for sale. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Poonam Singh v. Kamla, reported in 1996 ACJ 398 , wherein owner of the vehicle was a producer of bananas and the tractor-trolley was loaded with bananas for being taken to the destination of the purchaser, it was held by this Court that agricultural purpose could not be limited only to the work confined to the field or the place of resident of the agriculturist, it will also include the work incidental to it. It was further observed that agricultural purpose does not only mean cultivation of land and sowing of seeds but includes harvesting, taking of crop to threshing ground, to godown or to Mandi for sale. 13. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Malkibai v. Badriprasad, reported in 1996 ACJ 38 , wherein it was held that the use of tractor for carrying straw load even on hire would be a work for agricultural purpose and the insurance company is liable. It was further observed that the use of tractor for cultivating land of others and for assisting in the agricultural operations of other cultivators would also be deemed to be an agricultural purpose. 14. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of New India Insurance Company v. Darshana Devi, reported in MACD 2008 (SC) 74, wherein deceased was travelling on a mudguard of tractor and the driver of the tractor had no driving license, it was held that although the owner had contravened the contracts of insurance, insurance company cannot escape its liability in regard to third party risk but was entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the insured, namely, the owner of the offending vehicle. 15. On the strength of aforesaid decision, learned counsel submits that the learned tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 3. 16. Mr. C.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that so far as decision in the matter of New India Insurance Company v. Darshana Devi (supra) is concerned, the Hon'ble apex Court has affirmed the law laid down in earlier decisions and has also taken into consideration the law laid down in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3734, wherein it was held that in case where the tractor was insured for carrying out agricultural work, which would not include digging of earth and taking it in trolley to brick kiln, the claimant being mere passenger and not owner or driver, the claim petition could not have been allowed. However in that case and also in the case of New India Insurance Company v. Darshana Devi (supra) the Hon'ble apex Court has passed the award against insurance company in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with article 136 thereof. However in that case and also in the case of New India Insurance Company v. Darshana Devi (supra) the Hon'ble apex Court has passed the award against insurance company in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with article 136 thereof. 17. Further reliance is placed on a decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the matter of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Serjerao, reported in MACD 2008 (SC) 33, wherein labourers were travelling in trolley attached to a tractor, the Hon'ble apex Court keeping in view the position of law laid down in the matter of Brijmohan (supra) held that the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trollies concerned, insurance company has no liability. 18. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shamshad Bee, reported in 2008 ACC 319, wherein the deceased was travelling in a trolley, which was neither insured nor meant for carrying passengers, it was held that insurance company is not liable and the amount can be recovered from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 19. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Nilesh Kumar v. Bapulal, reported in 2008 ACJ 331 , wherein this Court has examined the definition of goods as define u/s 2 (13) of the Act, which do not include luggage or personal effects of passengers and held that exoneration of insurance company was justified. 20. Lastly reliance is placed on a decision of Full Bench decision in the matter of Bhav Singh v. Savirani, reported in [ 2008 (1) JLJ 134 = 2008 (1) MPLJ 72 ], wherein a Full Bench of this Court wherein labour working for the owner of the tractor-trolley died in accident, it was held that mere fact that the passenger is third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 or under terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 21. On the strength of aforesaid decision learned counsel submits that learned tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No. 3. 22. From perusal of Ex. 21. On the strength of aforesaid decision learned counsel submits that learned tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No. 3. 22. From perusal of Ex. P-4, which is property seizure memo, it is evident that no agricultural produce was seized by the police, however, it makes no difference as the accident took place on 20.7.2004 at 12:00 am and the FIR was lodged on that very day at about 12:50 am i.e. after 50 minutes only and in the FIR it is alleged that the alleged tractor was carrying the agricultural produce and the accident also took place in the Mandi yard. Thus, it can safely be said that at the time of accident the offending tractor attached with a trolley was carrying agricultural produce. 23. So far as the exoneration of respondent No. 3 is concerned, from perusal of the record it is evident that except filing of the policy no evidence has been led by the respondent No. 3 in the written statement that the alleged trolley attached with the tractor was not insured with respondent No. 3. To avoid the liability, it was the duty of the respondent No. 3 to adduce the evidence. 24. In the cross objection also made by the counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3, even no suggestion was given by the respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation as the trolley attached to the tractor was not insured. In the facts and circumstances of the case, where no evidence has been adduced by the respondent No. 3 to avoid the liability, this Court is of the opinion that learned tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent No. 3. 25. In view of this, the appeal filed by the appellants stands allowed. The amount awarded is enhanced as indicated above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application. Findings relating to exoneration of respondent No. 3 stand set aside. 25. In view of this, the appeal filed by the appellants stands allowed. The amount awarded is enhanced as indicated above. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of application. Findings relating to exoneration of respondent No. 3 stand set aside. The amount awarded shall be deposited by the Insurance Company with the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal is directed to invest 80% of the said amount on long term fixed deposit in the name of appellant No. 1 in the nearest Nationalized Bank, in the area where the appellant No. 1 is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance and interest on the said amount will be paid on monthly basis directly to the appellant No. 1. However, on an application by the appellant No. 1 this condition could be modified by the learned tribunal in exceptional circumstances, if made out by the appellant No. 1. 26. With the aforesaid modifications, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.