JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. This order shall also govern disposal of M.A. Nos. 2293, 2134 and 2139 of 2005 as in all the appeals the question involved is one and the same and also all the appeals are arising out of one accident. In M.A. Nos. 2134 and 2293 of 2005 the award under challenge is dated 13.4.2005 passed by the M.A.C.T., Manasa, District Neemuch in Claim Case No. 1 of 2004, whereby claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was allowed and compensation of Rs. 2,11,000 was awarded on account of death of Ramniwas. In M.A. Nos. 2294 and 2293 of 2005 appeals filed by the appellants are two in numbers and are the owners of tractor and trolley. Appeals are on the ground that the amount awarded is on higher side and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have wrongly been exonerated. In M.A. No. 139 of 2005, which is an appeal filed by the claimants challenging that amount awarded is on lower side and also exoneration of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside. Both the appeals, i.e., M.A. Nos. 2294 and 2139 of 2005, are against the award passed in Claim Case No. 16 of 2004. Thus, two appeals are on behalf of owners of tractor and trolley, while two appeals are by claimants. In appeals filed by claimants prayer is for enhancement of amount of compensation and for setting aside the findings of exoneration of insurance company, while in appeals filed by owners the prayer is for setting aside the findings of exoneration. Short facts of the case are that claim petitions were filed by the claimants alleging that on 22.11.2003 at about 11.30 p.m. tractor bearing registration No. MP 44-M 2579 turned turtle with the result deceased Ramniwas and Radheshyam, who were travelling in the said tractor for the safety of the goods, sustained injuries and died. It was alleged that offending tractor and trolley was owned by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and driven by respondent No. 4 and insured with respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as the tractor was insured with respondent No. 6 and trolley was insured with respondent No. 7. The claim petition was contested by the appellants and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on various grounds. The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and driven by respondent No. 4 and insured with respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as the tractor was insured with respondent No. 6 and trolley was insured with respondent No. 7. The claim petition was contested by the appellants and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on various grounds. The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on the ground that the offending vehicle was tractor-trolley which was insured for agricultural purpose, therefore, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence the learned Tribunal allowed the claim application filed by the claimants and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,11,000 in death case, against which present appeals have been filed. 2. Mr. Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the appellants of M.A. No. 2139 of 2005, submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It is submitted that tractor and trolley were insured, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the Tribunal to exonerate respondent Nos. 6 and 7 only on the ground that tractor and trolley were insured for agricultural purpose. It is submitted that at the relevant time tractor-trolley was used for transporting the iron angles and iron rods, which were required for the purpose of construction of the well. It is submitted that so far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,11,000, the break-up of which is as under: 3. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the case of Jugal Kishore and Another Vs. Ramlesh Devi and Others, (2004) ACJ 297, wherein Full Bench of this court held that though in a case of breach of policy insurance company is not liable if the vehicle is being driven in breach of conditions contained in section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, however, insurance company has to satisfy the award in favour of third party and recover the same from the insured. So far as amount is concerned, it is submitted that amount awarded is inadequate, which deserves to be enhanced. 4. Mr. K.C. Gangrade, learned counsel for appellants, submits that the offending vehicle was insured, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It is submitted that findings of exoneration be set aside. So far as amount is concerned, it is submitted that amount awarded is inadequate, which deserves to be enhanced. 4. Mr. K.C. Gangrade, learned counsel for appellants, submits that the offending vehicle was insured, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It is submitted that findings of exoneration be set aside. So far as amount is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the amount awarded is just and proper. 5. Mr. S.V. Dandwate and Mr. R.J. Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7, submit that no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in exonerating respondent Nos. 6 and 7. It is submitted that the offending tractor is insured with respondent No. 6 while trolley is insured with respondent No. 7. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, the same is just and proper. So far as liability of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is concerned, learned counsel submits that it was the tractor which was meant for agricultural purpose and also insured for the same purpose, therefore, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not liable for payment of compensation in any manner as it was being used for commercial purpose. It is submitted that as per the case of the claimant accident took place when the vehicles were used for sale of agricultural produce in the market while the owner has defended the case on the ground that offending vehicle was being used for bringing angles and iron rods. Learned counsel submits that at the time when the vehicle was seized no angle and iron sheets were seized by the police. On the contrary it is recorded in the seizure memo that iron angles and iron rods were not found on the spot. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal rightly exonerated respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 697 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in a case where the use of tractor for agricultural purpose would not be construed to mean that tractor-trolley can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 697 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in a case where the use of tractor for agricultural purpose would not be construed to mean that tractor-trolley can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. It is submitted that since in evidence it has come that the agricultural produce, which was kept in the vehicle for carrying up to mandi, did not belong to appellant, therefore, learned Tribunal committed no error in exonerating the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. So far as law laid down by Full Bench of this court in the matter of Jugal Kishore and Another Vs. Ramlesh Devi and Others, (2004) ACJ 297), is concerned, the learned counsel submits that in the matter of Bhav Singh Vs. Smt. Savirani and Others, (2008) ACJ 1043, Full Bench of this court has again taken into consideration the issue involved, wherein it was held that mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises u/s 147 or under terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 6. Learned counsel further submits that even if it is assumed that the persons who were travelling in the trolley attached with the tractor were labourers, then too since respondent No. 6 is the insurance company, who has insured the tractor only, therefore, respondent No. 6 is not liable for payment of compensation. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 56 , wherein in a case where the insurance company seeks to avoid its liability on the grounds that trolley was not insured and tractor alone was insured and the vehicle was not being used for agricultural purpose for which it was insured, it was held that insurance company is not liable. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeals filed by the owner, driver and claimants be dismissed. 7. From perusal of the record it appears that in death case income has been assessed at Rs. 18,000 per year and multiplier of 17 has been applied, which appears to be on lower side. The income ought to have been assessed at Rs. 7. From perusal of the record it appears that in death case income has been assessed at Rs. 18,000 per year and multiplier of 17 has been applied, which appears to be on lower side. The income ought to have been assessed at Rs. 2,000 per month as the accident is of the year 2003 and after applying the multiplier of 17, respondents-claimants are entitled for the following amount: 8. Thus, respondents-claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 2,95,000, instead of Rs. 2,11,000. The enhanced amount of Rs. 84,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application. 9. So far as exoneration of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is concerned, from the evidence it is amply proved that the offending vehicle was being used for a purpose other than agricultural purpose for which it was insured. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Full Bench of this court in the matter of Bhav Singh Vs. Smt. Savirani and Others, (2008) ACJ 1043, in which law laid down in the matter of Jugal Kishore and Another Vs. Ramlesh Devi and Others, (2004) ACJ 297, was also taken into consideration, this court is of the view that learned Tribunal committed no error in exonerating respondent Nos. 6 and 7. In view of this, both the appeals filed by the appellants-owners have no merits and are hereby dismissed. Both the appeals filed by claimants are allowed in part by enhancing the amount as stated above. With the aforesaid, all the appeals stand disposed of. No order as to costs.