JUDGMENT : M.A. Siddiqui, J. The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 21st February, 2003 passed by Additional Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seondha Camp, at Datia in Claim Case No. 03/2000, by which the Tribunal allowed the claim against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and appellant both jointly and severally for the amount of Rs. 1,52,000/- as compensation to the respondents No. 1 to 3 for the death of Raju, the son of respondents No. 1 and 2 and brother of respondent No. 3. It is undisputed fact that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been paid by the appellant under no fault liability u/s 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also undisputed fact that respondent Ramesh died during pendency of this appeal and respondent No. 2 is widow and respondent No. 3 is the son of deceased respondent No. 1. It is also not disputed that tractor No. MP07-A/9122 (hereinafter referred as the 'offending tractor') together with trolley was insured with appellant for agricultural purpose. The offending tractor was being driven by Parsuram (respondent No. 5) and owned by Vrindawan (respondent No. 4) who is father of respondent No. 5. It is also not in dispute that Parsuram was having a valid licence to drive the tractor. 2. In nutshell, the claim petition before the Tribunal was filed by Ramesh Sen (since dead), Smt. Betiraja and Premsingh, minor through his father, on the ground that deceased Raju was son of Ramesh and Smt. Betiraja and brother of Prem Singh, who was healthy and 20 years of age. He was doing labour work on the offending tractor owned by Vrindawan (respondent No. 4), which was being driven by Parsuram (respondent No. 5). On 31st December, 1998 Parsuram was carrying big stones (Khande) and was travelling near Mirgi River and due to rash and negligent driving the offending tractor did not remain under his control and it fell down from the bridge and Raju was pressed under the stones and he was badly injured and was referred to JA Hospital, Gwalior where he died. The report was lodged at Police Station, Alampur where Crime No. 60/98 was registered. 3. The respondents No. 1 to 3 claimed that mother, father and minor brother were dependent on Raju, who was earning Rs. 60/- per day. The report was lodged at Police Station, Alampur where Crime No. 60/98 was registered. 3. The respondents No. 1 to 3 claimed that mother, father and minor brother were dependent on Raju, who was earning Rs. 60/- per day. He was healthy and 20 years of age and was fighting as a wrestler and was maintaining them. A claim u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act was filed for compensation of Rs. 17,03,000/- from the driver and owner of the offending tractor and from appellant-Insurance Company. 4. The owner and driver (respondents No. 4 and 5) filed their joint written statement and denied the accident from the tractor and further defence was taken that Raju was minor and his age was 15 years. He was ill and was not giving any shelter to his family members and excessive claim has been filed. 5. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company presented written statement separately and claimed exoneration from the liability as the vehicle was being driven in breach of express condition of the policy. The vehicle was not insured for the purpose other than agricultural purpose and there was breach of condition and liability was denied. 6. The Claims Tribunal after framing issues on accident, liability and breach of condition of insurance policy tried the claim case and examined Ramesh (AW 1), Uttam (AW2) and Kok Singh (AW3) from the claimants side and Mahendra Kumar Kakoriya, Development Officer of Insurance Company and Parsuram (respondent-driver) and after hearing the parties held that the Insurance Company and driver and owner of the offending vehicle were responsible and fastened the joint liability and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,52,000/- was passed with 9% simple interest from the date of application by impugned award dated 21st February, 2003, which is under challenge in this appeal. 7. This appeal has been filed on the ground that the impugned award is illegal and contrary to law as well as contrary to the facts and material on record. The learned Tribunal erred in not holding that there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, as deceased Raju was labourer and no premium was taken for the labourer and impugned tractor was driven in breach of express condition of policy. Excessive amount has been awarded and since the appellant company is not liable and has been wrongly fastened with the liability, therefore, the amount of Rs. Excessive amount has been awarded and since the appellant company is not liable and has been wrongly fastened with the liability, therefore, the amount of Rs. 52,000/- paid towards interim award and remaining amount which has been deposited by the company should be refunded to the appellant-company. 8. I have heard both the sides and perused the original record together with the impugned award and documents taken on record. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant assailed the award on the ground that the tractor was being driven for commercial purpose of carrying material. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 supported the award and urged that the tractor was being driven for the purpose of carrying material to built a culvert which comes under the definition of agriculture. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that no specific plea has been taken in the written statement by the owner and driver to the effect that the stones were being carried for the purpose of agricultural operation. On the other hand, the appellant's stand is that no accident took place. 11. It is pertinent to note that there is a specific evidence of Ramesh (AW1), Uttam Singh (AW2) and Kok Singh (AW3) that Raju died due to the accident by tractor No. MP07-A/9122. Kok Singh (AW3) stated that the accident took place before him and he lodged the report, Ext.P/1 and police registered the case. Copy of FIR has been filed in which it is very much clear that the police registered the crime No. 60/98 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC against respondent/Parsuram and seized the tractor. Police prepared spot map vide Ext.P/3 and sent injured Raju for medical examination and on his death he was sent for post-mortem examination vide Ext.P/4 and his post-mortem was conducted. Registration of tractor was seized by Ext.P/5 and insurance policy was seized vide Ext.P/6. The driving licence was seized by Ext.P/7 and tractor was given on Supurdigi vide Ext.P/8, as it was seized by Ext.P/9 by police. So, the defence that the accident did not take place with the tractor is an after-thought and has been taken in order to escape from the liability. 12. Learned Tribunal has rightly held that Raju died due to the accident with impugned tractor driven by Parsu and owned by Vrindawan. 13. So, the defence that the accident did not take place with the tractor is an after-thought and has been taken in order to escape from the liability. 12. Learned Tribunal has rightly held that Raju died due to the accident with impugned tractor driven by Parsu and owned by Vrindawan. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per policy Ext.P/6 and Ext. D/1 policy which he had produced and Ext.D/3, original policy which has been produced from owner's side, it is very much clear that no premium was taken except for other risk of driver and that too for agricultural purpose. 14. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 supported the finding of the Tribunal and has taken a plea that even Ext.D/1, the insurance policy which was produced by Mahendra Singh Kakoriya (DW1) was not prepared by him and it is not the original policy. He placed reliance on Tejinder Singh Gujral v. Inderjit Singh and another, 2007 A.C.J. 37, wherein it has been held that, if the policy has not been produced then the Insurance Company will be held responsible. Same is the verdict of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Uma Devi and Others, (2000) ACJ 1451 ; Prem Bai and Another Vs. Ramesh and Others, (2003) ACJ 633); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Naushad and others, 2000 (2) T.A.C. 249 (M.P.) (D.B.). 15. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, (2003) 10 SCC 664 , wherein it has been held that where there is an insurance policy of driver then 'Khallasi' is not included in the policy and Insurance Company is not liable for the death of 'Khallasi'. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Serjerao and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 425 , it has been held that even no fault liability cannot be fastened where there is a breach of policy. Reliance has also been placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Serjerao and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 425 , it has been held that even no fault liability cannot be fastened where there is a breach of policy. Reliance has also been placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Others, (2007) 7 SCC 56 , wherein it has been held that where the claim, petitioner a labourer injured while travelling in trolley attached to tractor carrying earth to brick kiln but neither was the tractor trolley insured in addition to the tractor nor was the tractor being used for 'agricultural works', the only purpose for which the tractor was insured when the appellant received the injuries, the claim was not maintainable and appellant-Insurance Company is not responsible. Reliance is also placed on Bhav Singh Vs. Smt. Savirani and Others, (2008) ACJ 1043, wherein it has been held that labourer is a third party and would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises u/s 147 or under terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahila Javitri Devi and others, (2004 (1) T.A.C. 295 (M.P.), it has been held that offending tractor insured for agricultural and forest purpose, tractor not being used for purpose insured but was carrying passengers for marriage party and driven in violation of policy then Insurance Company will not be liable, only owner and tractor driver jointly or severally will be liable to pay the compensation. Same is the verdict of National Insurance Company v. Smt. Mamta W/o Guddu @ Kamal Singh and Ors., M.A.C.D. 2009 (2) (M.P.) 591; New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Soneram S/o Patiram and Ors., M.A.C.D. 2009 (2) (M.P.) 548 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Janki Ahirwar and others, (2011) ACJ 1386 ; and Shankarlal S/o Bherulal Dangi & another v. Bakshibai W/o Ramniwas and others, MACD 2012 (1) (M.P.) 81. 16. Learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the policy Ext.D/1 is not original and it has not been done from carbon copy and there exists no statement of witnesses of Insurance Company in this respect. 16. Learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the policy Ext.D/1 is not original and it has not been done from carbon copy and there exists no statement of witnesses of Insurance Company in this respect. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that besides Ext.D/1, original policy Ext.D/3 has been filed from owner's side and it is his copy and from its perusal it is very much clear that insurance is only for agricultural purpose and Rs. 15/- has been taken as premium for the driver and no premium has been taken for any other purpose and this is not only cover note or proposal but it is full policy and it has been endorsed in the last paragraph. From the perusal of Ext.D/3 it is very much clear that it is original policy and the offending tractor was insured only for agricultural purpose and premium was taken for driver only. 17. If it is assumed that the tractor was driven for the agricultural purpose, still no labour is covered and from the perusal of claim petition it is very much clear that there is a pleading that Raju was labourer. Hence, there is specific breach of condition of policy. The authorities which were cited by the appellant are directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case in comparison to the authorities cited by learned Counsel for the respondents. 18. So, from the above analysis, it is clear that there is specific breach and learned Claims Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the Insurance Company/appellant. Hence, this appeal is allowed and award is set aside against the appellant and it is directed that the Insurance Company will be entitled to realise the amount which was paid under the head of no fault liability from the claimants. The amount which has been deposited from the appellant side under protest be returned back to the appellant. The claimants may realise the award from the owner Vrindawan and driver Parsuram both jointly and severally. Looking to the circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to costs.