JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the award dated 31.1.2005 passed by Second M.A.C.T., Shajapur in Claim Case No. 43 of 2004 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 65,000 was awarded and also respondent No. 3 was exonerated, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 5.6.2003 appellant was going along with other labourers for collection of building material in a truck bearing registration No. MP 13-KA 4745, which was being driven by respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. It was alleged that the truck turned turtle, as a result appellant sustained grievous injuries, hence claim petition was filed and it was prayed that compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3 on the ground that since offending vehicle was being used for the purpose other than agricultural purpose, therefore respondent No. 3, insurance company, is not liable for payment of compensation. It was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and warded a sum of Rs. 65,000 on account of injuries and exonerated the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the offending vehicle was being used for the purpose other than agricultural, against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that amount awarded is inadequate which deserves to be enhanced. Learned counsel further submits that since offending vehicle was insured, therefore learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 3. It is submitted that appeal be allowed, amount be enhanced and finding regarding exoneration be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the respondent No. 3 has examined Administrative Officer, NAW 1, who has stated that risk of 4 agricultural labourers was covered under the policy, in the circumstances learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 3. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that amount awarded is just and proper. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 supports the contention of Mr. Manish Jain so far as it relates to amount of compensation. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, learned counsel submits that amount awarded is just and proper. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 supports the contention of Mr. Manish Jain so far as it relates to amount of compensation. So far as liability is concerned, learned counsel submits that it is true that Administrative Officer has admitted the fact that risk of labourers was covered but in fact risk of agricultural labourers was covered under the policy and the fact that appellant was agricultural labourer was not proved by the appellant, therefore learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent No. 3. Learned counsel further submits that since respondent No. I has not complied with section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore cross-objections have already been dismissed, hence respondent No. 1 cannot raise the plea about the liability. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. 6. From perusal of record, it transpires that cross-objections filed by respondent No. I have already been dismissed for want of compliance of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act but same point has been raised by the appellant in the appeal, therefore it has to be examined whether learned Tribunal was justified in exonerating the respondent No. 3. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, it appears that amount awarded is just and proper which requires no enhancement. So far as liability is concerned, risk of labourers was covered under the policy and in the evidence it has come that offending vehicle was being used at the relevant time for collection of gravel (gitti) for construction of well at the farm, this court is of the view that learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 3. 7. In view of this, appeal is allowed. The finding regarding exoneration is set aside. Respondent No. 3 shall be jointly liable to pay the amount of compensation along with other respondents. No order as to costs.