RAFIQ, J.—Application filed by non-claimant-appellants under Rule 147 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules seeking leave to prefer present appeal on behalf of legal representatives of deceased non-claimant no.4 Jai Singh and non-claimant no.5 Jalim Singh, is allowed. Amended cause-title is taken on record. 2. Non-claimants, who were owner of offending vehicle – tractor, have preferred this appeal aggrieved by award dated 16.08.2004 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, No.1, Dholpur, in MAC Case No.508/2004, with an inordinate delay of 2614 days. An application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been filed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for appellants and perusing the contents of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, I am not inclined to condone the delay. There is no sufficient ground which would have prevented the appellants to file present appeal. The application deserves to be dismissed. However, I have also considered the matter on merits. 4. While deciding issue no.1, learned Tribunal recorded a finding that deceased was riding on the tractor and on account of rash and negligent driving of driver, he fell down and his body came underneath the tractor tyre and he was ran over by the tractor and died. Evidence has also come on record that the tractor was insured for agriculture work. The insurance policy is placed on record as Exhibit NA-2. At the time of accident the tractor was carrying participants of a marriage in a trolley attached thereto and thus the offending vehicle was not being used in agriculture work. It was duty of the driver to inform its owner about use of tractor for non-agriculture work. Even if the tractor driver did not inform its owner about carrying the passengers, that does not mean that the insurance company would be liable for payment of compensation and it would not be termed as violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy thereby absolving the owner of the offending vehicle. Carrying passengers in the offending vehicle is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation and learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding so. Carrying passengers in the offending vehicle is clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation and learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding so. Since the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, therefore, learned Tribunal rightly directed payment of compensation to be made by insurance company giving it a right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- to claimants on account of death of Devi Singh. Learned Tribunal assessed monthly income of deceased at Rs.1500/- and looking to his age adopted multiplier of 15. Keeping in view the number of dependents, learned Tribunal deducted 1/3rd from the assessed income for own expenses of deceased. The award is perfectly just and reasonable and no interference is called for in this appeal by this court. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is also dismissed.