JUDGMENT : G.S. Solanki, J. Appellant No. 1 (owner of the tractor) and appellant No. 2 (driver of the tractor) preferred this appeal u/s 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the award dated 24th November, 2007 passed by AMACT, Panna, camp at Pawai, district Panna in Claim Case No. 17/2007, whereby Insurance Company, respondent No. 6 non-applicant No. 3 was exonerated and appellants were directed to pay the compensation amount to claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The facts, in a nutshell, giving rise to this appeal are that claimants No. 1 to 4 filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act for the compensation of death of Ramesh Yadav, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 to 4. It was pleaded that appellant No. 1/non-applicant No. 2 was the owner of offended tractor and the same was driven by respondent No. 5. It is further pleaded that tractor was insured with respondent No. 6, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. It is further pleaded that appellant No. 2/non-applicant No. 4 was also driver. 2. It is further pleaded that on 10th February, 2005, deceased Ramesh and his uncle Keshri were sitting on the mudguard of aforesaid tractor. It is further pleaded that due to negligent driving of appellant No.5/non-applicant No.1 Ramesh fell down and he was crushed from the wheel of tractor trolley. Immediately, he was shifted to Katni and he was succumbed to his injuries. Report was lodged at police-station Shah Nagar and criminal case u/s 304-A of IPC was registered against appellant No.5, Ammu Yadav. Thereafter, claimants/respondent No.1 to 4 filed aforesaid claim petition praying for compensation of Rs. 10,20,000/- against non-applicants. 3. Appellants as well as Insurance Co. denied the contentions of claimants/respondent No. 1 to 4. It is further pleaded that at the time of incident, tractor was being driven by appellant No. 2, Gokul and he was engaged in doing agricultural operations. He further pleaded that Kesri Yadav lodged false report of incident. It is further submitted that tractor was duly insured with respondent No. 6, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Insurance Co. Ltd./respondent No. 6 (non-applicant No. 3). 4. Case of respondent No. 6/non-applicant No. 3 is that since deceased was sitting on mudguard and as per policy, only owner and driver is covered. It is further submitted that tractor was duly insured with respondent No. 6, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Insurance Co. Ltd./respondent No. 6 (non-applicant No. 3). 4. Case of respondent No. 6/non-applicant No. 3 is that since deceased was sitting on mudguard and as per policy, only owner and driver is covered. It is further pleaded that at the time of incident, tractor was not engaged in agricultural operation and therefore, it was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that cover note was issued on the basis of a check payable on Allahabad Bank, which is dishonoured. Despite notice, non-applicant No. 2, Surat Singh, had not paid any premium. Therefore, cover note, document became ineffective and cancelled. Therefore, Insurance Company cannot be made liable for any compensation. 5. On the aforesaid pleading, learned Tribunal framed as many as 7 issues and on appraisal of evidence on record. Insurance Company/respondent No. 6 (Appellants have been directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellants submitted that the learned trial Court committed illegality in exonerating the Insurance Company for the liability of compensation. He further submitted that learned tribunal failed to consider the fact that at the time of incident, offending tractor was being used for the agricultural operation. Therefore, there was no breach of policy. He placed reliance of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamli and others, 2010 A.C.J. 1340 and Bhav Singh Vs. Smt. Savirani and Others, (2008) ACJ 1043. 7. On the contrary, advocate appearing on the behalf of Insurance Co./respondent No. 6 submitted that trial Court rightly exonerated the Insurance Co. because it is not the case of breach of policy but it is a case of no insurance at all. She placed reliance on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamodi Bai and Others, (2007) ACJ 2031. 8. I have perused the impugned award, evidence and other material on record. 9. In this case, claimant Vimla Bai (PW-1) and her witness Munnalla (AW-2), Bahadur Singh (PW-3) categorically deposited that on 10th February, 2005, non-applicant Ammu was going towards village Khargorda. Deceased Ramesh and uncle Kesri were siting on mudguard of the tractor. 8. I have perused the impugned award, evidence and other material on record. 9. In this case, claimant Vimla Bai (PW-1) and her witness Munnalla (AW-2), Bahadur Singh (PW-3) categorically deposited that on 10th February, 2005, non-applicant Ammu was going towards village Khargorda. Deceased Ramesh and uncle Kesri were siting on mudguard of the tractor. They further stated that due to negligence of driver, on account of the jerk, Ramesh fell down and wheel of the trolley ran over him and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. In these circumstances, I am of the view that trial Court properly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at the conclusion that deceased Ramesh was travelling by sitting on mudguard and due to the jerk, he fell down and received injures. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), facts were different to this case. In that case, witnesses deposed different facts, than facts lodged in FIR. Therefore, principles laid down in that case are not applicable to the case in hand. 10. On careful scanning of aforesaid witness on record, it is crystal clear that at the time of incident, tractor was not used for agricultural operation. Same was going towards the village Kharmora. In these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that tractor cannot be used as transporting vehicle and it was a breach of terms of conditions of the policy. In Bhav Singh case (supra), facts of the case were different. In that case, deceased was a labour working for owner of the tractor trolley but, as mentioned hereinabove, in this case, deceased Ramesh was not labour of the owner as well as tractor was not used for the purpose of agricultural operation. The principles laid down in that case are not applicable to this case. 11. In these circumstances, I am of the view that trial Court had not committed any illegality in appreciating the evidence on record. In view of the foregoing discussions, appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.