JUDGMENT G.S. Solanki, J. 1. The Appellant has filed this Misc. Appeal being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 11/12/1996 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mudwara, Katni in Motor Accident Claim No. 90/94. 2. Facts of the cases in brief are that on 10.9.1994 at about 5 o'clock Phullibai W/o Bholaram, Respondent No. 1 and mother of Respondents No. 2 to 5, was traveling in a HMT Tractor No. MP20A/5521 from Vijayraghavgarh to Hardua. Tractor was driven by Ramdas, Respondent No. 8. Tractor was owned by Respondents No. 6 and 7. It is further alleged that Phullibai was traveling in a tractor as agricultural labour and due to rash and 7 gligent driving, Phullibai fell down from the trolley of the tractor, resulting in an accident she received injuries on various part of the body and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed a claim petition against Respondents No. 6, 7, 8 and Respondent/Insurance Company. 3. Respondents/Defendants No. 6, 7, 8 and Insurance Company remained absent before the trial Court and Trial Court proceeded ex-parte against them. 4. Appellant/Defendant No. 4 contested the case on the pleading interlaid that deceased had used the tractor as contravention terms and conditions of Insurance Police. Insurance policy was issued for only agricultural use of the vehicle, whereas on the date of incident, it was used for carrying the passengers on hire and reward for Devi Darshan. In this way, deceased Phullibai was not an agricultural labour. She was an illegal passenger. 5. Learned Tribunal, after recording the evidence and on appraisal of evidence and other material on record, passed the impugned award of Rs. 92,000/- by which Appellant is also made liable to pay the compensation amount to the Respondents No. 1 to 5 applicants. Hence this Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that learned Tribunal has committed error in not appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. Since tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and it was neither a goods vehicle nor a public service vehicle and thus, there is no statutory requirement to cover the risk of gratuitous passenger traveling on a tractor, therefore, Appellant/insurance company is not at all liable to pay the compensation to claimants/Respondents No. 1 to 5, therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned award to the extent exonerating the Appellant/insurance company. 7. 7. None was appeared for the Respondents at the time of final hearing. 8. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 11.12.1996 and other material on record. 9. In para-17 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court was of the view that due to difference of engine number and chassis number in the registration book and insurance cover note, came to the conclusion that Appellant/insurance company failed to file insurance policy of disputed tractor, therefore, Tribunal was of the view that there was no breach of condition of insurance policy and Appellant/Defendant No. 4 was made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 10. On perusal of statements of Bholaram (PW1), Dundi (PW2), Komalpuri (PW3) and Munnalal (PW4), it reveal that deceased Phullibai was traveling in a tractor trolley No. MP20A/5521 which was driven by Ramdas, Respondent No. 8. Due to negligent driving of Ramdas, deceased Phullibai fell down, received injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries caused in accident. 11. Munnalal (PW4) was a person who lodged the First Information Report Ex.P/1 on the basis of which a case under Section 304-A was registered against the Respondent No. 8. From Ex.P/1, it reveals that deceased Phullibai and co-passengers were traveling in a tractor trolley for the purpose of Maa Sharda Darshan. However, Munnalal (PW4) stated that he did not lodge such type of FIR and he was contradicted with Ex.P/1. But from other evidence on record, it reveals that Phullibai was traveling with other passengers in a tractor which was meant for the agriculture purpose. 12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that tractor is neither a goods vehicle nor a public service vehicle and thus there is no statutory requirement to cover the risk of gratuitous passenger traveling on a tractor, therefore it was a case of no insurance at all and not a mere breach of policy. He relied on, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamodi Bai and Others, 2007 ACJ 2031 . 13. The fact of the instant case is similar to the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), therefore, principle laid down in that case is also applicable to this case. Since tractor is not a goods vehicle nor a public service vehicle, therefore it cannot carry the passenger either for hire or gratis. 13. The fact of the instant case is similar to the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), therefore, principle laid down in that case is also applicable to this case. Since tractor is not a goods vehicle nor a public service vehicle, therefore it cannot carry the passenger either for hire or gratis. In these circumstances, learned Claim Tribunal failed to see and appreciate that it was duty of the claimant or the owner of the tractor trolley to establish that as per the policy of insurance, the Appellant is liable to pay compensation. In this way, it is a case of no insurance at all and not a mere breach of policy. 14. In these circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed and judgment/award passed by the trial Court is set aside up to the following extent and Appellant/insurance company is exonerated from liability to pay the compensation amount. At the same time, it is clarified that the Appellant/insurance company would not be entitled to refund of any amount of compensation, if received by the claimants/Respondents No. 1 to 5 and the Appellant/insurance company would be free to recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.