JUDGMENT : C.T. Selvam, J. This civil miscellaneous appeal rises against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2012 in M.C.O.P. No. 210 of 2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Thirupattur, Vellore District. 2. The appellant is the insurance company. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are the claimants and the respondent No. 6 is the owner of the offending vehicle. One Muni-sami met with an accident in the course of his employment under the respondent No. 6 herein, on 7.1.2003 at about 8 a.m., while driving tractor bearing registration No. TN 23-N 5805 attached with Plandai, tar mixing plant, in Javadhu Hills at Mombai and the said Plandai dashed against tractor, due to which tractor capsized into a pit. As a result, the said Munisami sustained fatal injuries and died. The claimants sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,00,000. 3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondents-claimants, two witnesses were examined and five exhibits were marked. One witness was examined and one exhibit was marked on behalf of the appellant insurance company. 4. On appreciation of materials before it, the Tribunal awarded compensation as follows : (a) Love and affection Rs. 75,000 (b) Funeral expenses Rs. 10,000 (c) Loss of income Rs. 4,89,600 Total Rs. 5,74,600 The said sum of Rs. 5,74,600 was directed to be paid together with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant challenges the award only with regard to liability and not on the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. Learned counsel further submits that the accident had taken place only due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by the deceased. Therefore, for the negligence of the tortfeasor, the claimants-legal representatives of the said deceased are not entitled for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel also submits that since the deceased had been engaged in driving tractor for commercial purpose and tractor alone was insured under the Farmer's Package Policy, the remedy, if any, for the death of the deceased, to the claimants would be under the provisions of Workmen 's Compensation Act. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC) and judgment of this court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Mohan, 1996 ACJ 1151 (Madras) and unreported judgments of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Udayakumar, 2013 (1) TN MAC 415 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Selvamani, 2013 (1) TN MAC 657. 6. This court is unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. On perusal of the order under challenge, this court finds that the tractor attached with Plandai was used for mixing cement. The tractor was insured under the Farmer's Package Policy. It is the claimants' case that the cement mixing plant was attached to the tractor towards formation of road, which was used for agricultural operations. PW 2, eyewitness, has deposed that the accident had taken place when the deceased was driving the tractor along with trailer at normal speed and due to poor condition of the road, the trailer dashed against the tractor, due to which tractor capsized into a pit, resulting in the death of the deceased. DW 1 has admitted that the insurance policy also covers driver. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the underlying purpose for use of tractor was agricultural operations. The evidence of PW 2/eyewitness reveals that the driver of the tractor/deceased was not at fault. The admission of DW 1 would show that the driver was covered by the said policy. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal informing award of compensation to the claimants does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, this civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the award under challenge is confirmed. The appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest less that already deposited within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents-claimant Nos. 1 and 5 are entitled to withdraw their respective shares on due application and as apportioned by the Tribunal. Deposit of sums payable to the minors and withdrawal of interest once in three months towards meeting their needs shall be effected as directed by the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.