ORDER : G.D. Saxena, J. This appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company/appellant against an Award dated 29th June 2004 in Claim Case No. 36/2003 passed by the Fourth Additional Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhind (M.P.), awarding thereby compensation amount in the sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- in favour of the claimants of deceased Narsingh Tyagi, who died in an accident occurred on 24th February 2001 at Bhind-Porsa road while travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. RJ05-IR 4586, due to rash and negligent driving by Narenrda Singh Jat (Respondent No. 1 in claim petition) owned by Sher Singh (Respondent No. 2 in claim petition) and insured with appellant-Insurance Company. Admitted facts of the case are that on 24th February 2001 at about 4 p.m., deceased Narsingh Tyagi was travelling on the mudguard of Tractor No. RJ05-IR 4586 from Kanadhar village to Bandokhar. At Porsa Road, due to negligent on the part of the aforesaid driver, the vehicle turned turtle, as a result, deceased Narsingh who was sitting on the mudguard died by pressing under the tractor. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the driver Narendra Singh indicating that deceased was driving the tractor and due to his reckless driving, the tractor turned turtle and he died in such an accident. During inquiry, the fact came to the notice that respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle and due to his act, the accident caused. Accordingly, the crime was registered against the driver by the police and a charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court having jurisdiction. It is stated that the deceased Narsingh aged 35 years was an earning member in the family and by doing agricultural and other job of animal husbandry and milk selling, he used to earn Rs. 4000/-. In these circumstances, the claim was moved before the learned MACT, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 36,85,000/-. The learned tribunal, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties present before it, granted compensation to the sum of Rs. 1,72,000/- against the owner as well as the Insurance company. Being aggrieved by the award passed on the principles of joint and several liability, this appeal came to be filed by the Insurance Company. 2. 36,85,000/-. The learned tribunal, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties present before it, granted compensation to the sum of Rs. 1,72,000/- against the owner as well as the Insurance company. Being aggrieved by the award passed on the principles of joint and several liability, this appeal came to be filed by the Insurance Company. 2. The contention of the Insurance company/appellant is that the Award so passed under appeal is against the settled principles of law and thus is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the deceased was travelling in a tractor which was meant for neither passengers nor for carrying goods and is registered as a vehicle for agricultural purposes. The insurance of the vehicle was against third party and as per terms of the policy, the insurance company was not liable for death or injuries of such passengers travelling on tractor as no premium was paid for death or injury of the person other than driver. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company may be exonerated form the liability of payment of award amount. 3. The claimants/respondent, by way of cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. submitted that the learned tribunal while considering the award of compensation did not consider properly facts regarding loss of dependency and the income of deceased. It is further submitted that no compensation in other admissible heads was awarded by the tribunal. Therefore, it is prayed that by allowing the cross-objection, the award amount may properly be enhanced. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case with case laws and the relevant provisions. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, following questions arise for consideration of this appeal:- (i) Whether, the Insurance Company is entitled for exoneration of the liability of satisfying the award amount because the offending vehicle was carrying the deceased in violation of the terms of the insurance policy which was issued for agricultural use of the tractor-trolley on payment of specified premium? (ii) Whether, in case of the deceased who was travelling on mudguard of the tractor involved in an accident and insured under third party cover policy with insurer, the Insurance Company, as per terms of the policy issued is responsible for satisfaction of the award amount first and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle involved? (iii) Whether, the award passed by the tribunal requires to be enhanced? 6. On perusal of the record of the tribunal, it appears that the offending vehicle, i.e., tractor was insured by the owner vide insurance policy Ex. D/1 (Cover note) under Commercial Vehicle "B" Policy Miscellaneous Vehicles and premium for Rs. 3468/- inclusive premium of Rs. 15/- for driver was charged for the period from 25th February 2000 to 24th February 2001. No witness was examined to prove the nature and terms of the policy. On going through the pleadings and the deposition of Ramakant Sharma (AW-2), the eye-witness to the accident, it is found that three years ago on the date of accident, the deceased Narsingh Tyagi was travelling with a driver Narendra Singh in the tractor and due to running in high speed it turned turtle as a consequence, Narsingh by pressing under turtled tractor died on the spot. In cross-examination, this witness admitted that deceased Narsingh at the time of accident was sitting on the wooden box fixed on the mudguard and driver Narendra Singh was driving the tractor. As mentioned above, the insurance policy of the vehicle though was for third party cover with commercial agricultural use but no premium was paid for life or injury of any person other than driver travelling on the tractor. In such circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the insured. 7. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others (2004) 8 SCC 697 , wherein the Hon. Apex Court has observed as follows:- There is nothing on records to show that the owner of the tractor had produced any insurance cover in respect of the trolley. It is furthermore not disputed that the tractor was insured only for the purpose of carrying out agricultural works. The representative of the Insurance Company Mr. It is furthermore not disputed that the tractor was insured only for the purpose of carrying out agricultural works. The representative of the Insurance Company Mr. Hari Singh Meena on cross-examination merely accepted the suggestion that cutting the earth and levelling the field with earth would be an agricultural work but respondent No. 1 himself categorically stated in his claim petition before the Tribunal stating that the earth had been dug and was being carried in the trolley to the brick-kiln. Evidently the earth was meant to be used only for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. Digging of earth for the purpose of manufacture of brick-kiln indisputably cannot amount to carrying out of the agricultural work. On above facts Apex court considered the above facts and observed as follows:- 16. Furthermore, a tractor is not even a goods carriage. The "goods carriage" has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean "any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods" whereas "tractor" has been defined in Section 2(44) to mean "a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller". The "trailer" has been defined in Section 2(46) to mean "any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle." 17. A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purpose, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of the "goods carriage" as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decisions of this Court in Asha Rani (supra) and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991, i.e., much prior to coming into force of 1994 amendment. 8. Further in the case of Bhav Singh Vs. Smt. Savirani and Others (2008) ACJ 1043, Full bench of this court observes as follows:- 10. Sub Section (5) of Section 147 of the Act, however provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance u/s 147 of the Act shall be liable to indemnify a person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or classes of persons. Thus if the policy of insurance covers any liability in addition to the liability u/s 147(1) of the Act, the insurer will be liable to indemnify the insured in case of any liability not because of the provisions of sub section (1) of section 147 but because of the terms and conditions of contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured. Therefore, if the contract of insurance provides for a liability to a passenger or to an employee other than the liabilities provided under sub section (1) of the Section 147 of the Act, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured against such liability. 9. Recently, in S.M. Sharmila Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others (2012) 2 SCC 770, the Hon. Apex Court considered where the appellant, the owner of vehicle and her workman were travelling in the offending vehicle. The workman claimed compensation contending that accident arose out of and in course of employment. So, liability was fixed on respondent insurance company. 9. Recently, in S.M. Sharmila Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others (2012) 2 SCC 770, the Hon. Apex Court considered where the appellant, the owner of vehicle and her workman were travelling in the offending vehicle. The workman claimed compensation contending that accident arose out of and in course of employment. So, liability was fixed on respondent insurance company. In appeal High Court concluded that vehicle involved in accident was not insured with the insurer on the date of accident and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle, which was held to be justified. 10. The record reveals that the deceased Narsingh as a gratuitous passenger was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor involved in accident, driven by Naresh Singh driver and owned by Sher Singh (respondent No. 4). The tractor involved in accident was insured for agricultural hire purpose under Commercial Vehicle "B" Policy Miscellaneous Vehicles. It is also not proved that deceased was travelling on the mudguard of tractor while carrying the goods as owner or representative of the owner of goods. No premium for carrying the passengers/persons except driver was paid to the Insurance Company. So, in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it can be safely inferred that the offending tractor at the time of the accident was not being plied in accordance with the policy. There is no iota of evidence available on the record which may suggest that the tractor fitted with a trailer was also meant to be used for other purposes and it was also registered for other purposes. The tractor is certainly not even a goods carriage as has been defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the definite opinion that the owner of the offending tractor has committed the breach of condition of insurance policy. It is true that offending tractor was insured with appellant-National Insurance Co. Ltd. at the time of the accident but as it was carrying the passenger at the time of the accident, hence there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy and the insurance company cannot be said to be liable for making the payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Ltd. at the time of the accident but as it was carrying the passenger at the time of the accident, hence there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy and the insurance company cannot be said to be liable for making the payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. When the insurance company is not statutorily required to cover the liability in respect of a passenger in a vehicle u/s 147 unless such passengers is the owner or agent of the owner of the goods accompanying such goods, absolutely there is no need for the Insurance Company to pay compensation since there is no contractual liability under the statute to pay the amount to the gratuitous passenger travelling in the goods carriage vehicle. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this court, a direction could not be given to the Insurance Company to pay to the claimants and recover from the owner of the vehicle. So, the appellant is hereby absolved from the liability of payment of award amount to the claimants of the deceased and the owner of the tractor on the basis of vicarious liability of his employee-deceased driver is liable to satisfy the award. 11. Now, considering the quantum of award amount, it appears that for want of proof, the income of the deceased by the source of agricultural work and milk vending was rightly assessed by the learned tribunal as per II Schedule of Section 163A of the Act after taking overall facts of the case. Hence, taking yearly income as Rs. 15,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd therefrom, loss of dependency comes to Rs. 10,000/-. As per age of the deceased, the tribunal has rightly applied multiplier of 16 and determined Rs. 1,60,000/- as monitory loss to the family and after giving sum of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs. 2,000/- as funeral expenses, total compensation of Rs. 1,67,000/- is awarded to the claimants. Since the compensation on other admissible heads are not provided and the amount which was provided under the heads being based on lower side is enhanced below after giving compensation on other heads:- (i) loss of consortium to wife Rs. 20,000/- (ii) for love and affection to rest claimants Rs. 20,000/- (iii) for transportation of dead body including funeral rites of the deceased Rs. 10,000/- (iv) loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 12. 20,000/- (ii) for love and affection to rest claimants Rs. 20,000/- (iii) for transportation of dead body including funeral rites of the deceased Rs. 10,000/- (iv) loss of estate Rs. 10,000/- 12. In this way, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,27,000/- (Rs. Two lac twenty seven thousand only) which would be payable to the respondents/claimants No. 1 to 3 with simple interest @ 7% p.a. by the owner of the vehicle, within a period of six months from the date of this order. If any amount is paid to the claimants during trial before the learned tribunal or during appeal by the appellant/Insurance Company to the claimants then the amount paid or deposited by the appellant-Insurance company shall be recoverable by the insurer from the owner of the vehicle. In the light of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance company and the counter appeal both are allowed in the manner indicated above.