JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the award dated 16-5-2003 passed by IIIrd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara in Claim Case No. 74/2000, wherein the insurance company has been exonerated. 2. The facts leading to the present case are that the claimants filed claim application before the Tribunal claiming the amount of compensation for the injuries sustained by the deceased Rajesh. It was submitted in the claim application that the tractor bearing Registration No. MP28-E-0953 and Trolley No. MP28-E-0954 were hired by the deceased Rajesh carrying the bags of wheat from his field and fare was settled to Rs. 150/-. In the tractor about 30-32 bags of wheat was loaded and said tractor was driven by driver Bhaiyalal rashly and negligently. It was also in the claim application that Rajesh told the driver that he will go to the village and bring certain persons to load the tractor and trolley but the driver of the vehicle has not agreed. It was also stated that there was a jerk in the tractor. With the result the bags of wheats fell down on the deceased Rajesh resulting into the accident and his death. 3. The tribunal held that the wheat were carried from field to the house though the tractor was hired but the tractor was used for the agriculture purposes and therefore the insurance company is liable to indemnify the claim for compensation. In the present case before the tribunal the insurance company has not examined any witness. 4. In the present case, the insurance company has not examined any person to prove that there had been a breach of policy and there was no prescription in the policy as such that if the same is to be used only by the owner of the tractor for agriculture use then only insurance company shall be responsible to pay the compensation and there is no liability if the same is used by other person then insurance company shall not be liable to pay the amount. The burden to prove the breach of policy was on the insurance company but in the present case the insurance company has not examined any witness to prove the breach of policy. I have already held earlier that in the present case the insurance company has not examined any person to prove the breach of policy. 5. The burden to prove the breach of policy was on the insurance company but in the present case the insurance company has not examined any witness to prove the breach of policy. I have already held earlier that in the present case the insurance company has not examined any person to prove the breach of policy. 5. In view of the aforesaid, I am inclined to allow the present appeal and hold that the insurance company since has failed to prove the breach of policy-therefore, the insurance company is also liable to indemnify the claim for compensation. The appellant as well as respondent No. 1-insurance company shall pay the amount within 60 days from the date they receive the certified copy, failing which it shall carry interest @ 6% from the date the application is filed. Appeal is allowed.