JUDGMENT C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2006 passed in O.P. No. 3092 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), the New India Assurance Company Limited preferred the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the main OP. 2. The claimants, who are sons of one T. Jangaiah, filed an application, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of ` 1,50,000/-for the death of their father in a road accident that took place on 07.02.1996. It is stated that on the fateful day, the said Jangaiah was travelling in a tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 24T 3136 and 3137 respectively along with tent articles. When the tractor reached the outskirts of Rayalagandi bridge, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, the tractor hit a boulder and turned turtle. As a result of which, Jangaiah fell underneath the trailer and succumbed to injuries. In respect of the above incident, a case was registered against the driver of the tractor, and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor and the 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the tractor and trailer, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 3. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter contending inter alia that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor and that the deceased did not die in the accident. It is further stated that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation, as the 1st respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: "1. Whether the accident occurred on 07.02.1996 at about 10.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 24T 3136 and 3137 by its driver causing death of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? Whether the accident occurred on 07.02.1996 at about 10.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos. AP 24T 3136 and 3137 by its driver causing death of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief." 5. In support of their case, the claimants examined P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A. 1 to A.6. On its behalf, the Insurance Company examined its Administrative Officer as R.W.1 and got marked Ex. B.1, a copy of Insurance policy. 6. After analyzing the material available on record, while holding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent' driving by the driver of the tractor, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation to the claimants. Challenging the same, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company mainly contends that the policy was issued for agricultural purpose, but at' the time of the accident, the tractor and trailer was used for commercial purpose namely transport of tent articles and as there is no coverage for the risk of passengers travelling in the tractor and trailer when it is used for a purpose other than for which it was insured, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation. 8. In spite of service of notices on the claimants, there is no representation on their behalf. Hence, Mr. Rama Rao, Advocate, is requested to assist the Court in disposal of the appeal. His argument is to the effect that as there is no material to show that the 1st respondent has violated the conditions of the policy the claimants are entitled to the compensation. 9. P.W.1 in the affidavit filed in lieu of his chief-examination stated that he is an eye-witness to, the incident and also the person who lodged the complaint after the incident. According to him, on 07.02.1996, his father, who was doing tent articles business in their village, loaded tent articles in tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 24T 3136 and 3137, sat on the tractor as a owner of the goods and was proceeding from Padera village to Ramanthapur village. According to him, on 07.02.1996, his father, who was doing tent articles business in their village, loaded tent articles in tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 24T 3136 and 3137, sat on the tractor as a owner of the goods and was proceeding from Padera village to Ramanthapur village. At about 10.30 p.m. when the tractor and trailer reached the outskirts of Padera, the driver of the tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed resulting in vehicle turning turtle. It h also stated that due to the above act, his father fell underneath the trailer and succumbed to injuries. Immediately thereafter, he shifted his father to Government Hospital, Atchampet, where the doctor declared him dead. His evidence disclose that his father was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the family. Though P.W.1 was examined at length, nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. 10. The First Information Report, which is placed on record as Ex. A.1, and the charge sheet, filed pursuant to the investigation made in the said crime, which is produced as Ex. A.2, amply establish that the driver of the tractor was responsible for the accident. Apart from that, the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, which is placed on record as Ex. A.5, also demonstrates that the accident took place due to negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. 11. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs. A.1, A.2 and A.5 clearly establishes that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place warrants no interference. 12. The question would be whether the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor. 13. Coming to the liability of the insurance company in paying the compensation, the learned counsel for the insurance company strenuously contends that since the policy does not cover the risk of a person using the vehicle for transporting tent articles to a marriage function and as the vehicle was used for the purpose other than for which it was insured and as the seating capacity of the tractor is only one, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 14. 14. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance on the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex. B.1. According to R.W.1, the Company had issued Ex. B.1 which is an Act policy valid from 12.05.1995 to 11.05.1996. He further deposed that at the time of accident, 17 persons were travelling in the tractor and trailer which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. He thus deposed that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 15. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Brij Mohan and others 2007 (1) An.W.R. 733 (SC) : 2007 ACJ 1909 the Supreme Court, on the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trolley, held that insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 16. In National Insurance Company Limited v. V. Chinnamma and others (2004) 8 SCC 697 also the Apex Court dealt with a case where a tractor trolley was used for transportation of vegetables as deceased was a businessman dealing with vegetables. After purchase of vegetables, the deceased was transporting the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. It was held that the same was not used for an agriculture purpose and the decision of the Tribunal and the High Court holding the insurance company liable to pay the compensation for the deceased travelling in a tractor trolley along-with goods was reversed. 17. Policy which is placed on record as Ex. B1 through RW.1 clearly shows that the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes with the risk of driver alone. It is not in dispute that in the present case the deceased was travelling in the trolley attached to the tractor along with tent articles. Moreover, the policy is an Act policy not covering the risk of the deceased, who was an inmate of the vehicle. 18. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgments referred to above, I am of the opinion that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and the fifth respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the liability of the insurance company. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the liability of the insurance company. However, if any amount is already deposited by the insurance company the same is liable to be recovered from the owner. The claimants are also at liberty to recover the same from the owner by treating this judgment as a decree. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.