ORAL ORDER I.A.No.7522/12 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the limitation petition, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. I.A.No.7522/12 stands allowed. 5. The insurer of offending vehicle Tractor bearing registration no.BR-34-8121 and Trailor bearing registration no.BR-34-8122 have preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 13.01.2011 and 3.02.2011 respectively passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.III-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Munger in Claim Case No.15/2009 by which the appellants have been directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 6. The claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition for grant of compensation amount of Rs.3,55,100/- with interest due to the death of Sanjay Mandal, husband of the claimant no.1 and father of other claimants due to rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid vehicle causing the death of the deceased Sanjay Mandal, who was travelling on the Tractor. It has been asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.2400/-per month at the time of accident. 7. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their written statement contending therein that the respondent no.5 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent no.6 is the driver of the vehicle. The driver had valid driving licence. The vehicle was insured by the National Insurance Company Limited. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants, which is liable to be paid by the insurer of the vehicle. The insurer appeared and filed their written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. The insurance of the vehicle has not been denied. It has been asserted that the liability of the insurance company is limited according to the terms and conditions of the policy of the insurance company. The insurance company is not liable to make payment of compensation as the tractor was insured only for agriculture purpose, but at the material time, it was used for commercial purpose and the insurer are entitled for protection under Section 64 of V.B. of Insurance Act, 1938 and Sections 149 and 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it was submitted that the claimants are not entitled to get any relief from the insurer of the vehicle. 8. 8. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the issues were framed. The evidence was adduced and after hearing both the parties, the impugned order has been passed holding that since the vehicle was insured, the insurer is liable to pay the amount of compensation. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the vehicle was insured for the agricultural purpose, but the vehicle has been used for the commercial purpose and the Coolies including the deceased were travelling on the Tractor as gratuitous passengers. The Tractor and Trolley are not meant for travelling by the passengers and they were not insured for carrying the passengers, as such, the insurer are not liable to pay the amount of compensation as the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He has further contended that Exhibit-4 is the insurance policy. On perusal of Exhibit-4 (insurance policy), it appears that the insurance of the tractor was made only for the agricultural purpose, which was misused by the owner of the vehicle and the occurrence has taken place by the tractor, which was being used other than the agricultural purpose. The tractor and trolley are not meant to carry the passenger and insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation with regard to gratuitous passenger travelling on the tractor and trolley. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Most. Sugandhi Devi & Ors. reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 127 = 2010 (3) BBCJ V-234. 10. He has further submitted that the amount of Rs.50,000/- has already been paid to the claimants as interim compensation and as such, the appellants should be entitled to get back the aforesaid amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. 11. The respondent nos. 1 to 6 have appeared through Vakalatnama, but no one appears on their behalf. The respondent nos. 7 and 8 are the parents of the deceased. Notices have also been served on them, but they have not appeared. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect as to whether the Tractor and Trolley are meant for carrying the passengers or the coolies. Notices have also been served on them, but they have not appeared. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Tribunal has not considered the aspect as to whether the Tractor and Trolley are meant for carrying the passengers or the coolies. The Tractor and Trolley were not insured for giving any compensation to the gratuitous passengers nor the tractor was insured for carrying the passengers. The Tractor was insured only for the agricultural purpose, but in this case, the Tractor has been used for commercial purpose other than the agricultural purpose, as such, the insurer-appellants are not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1718 of 2007/S.L.P. (Civil) No.3900/2006 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Natthi Bai) in similarly situated case has held that undisputedly the tractor was to be used only for agricultural purpose and not for carrying any passenger. In that very case reference has been made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (12) SCC 243 (National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bomnitha Subbhayamma) and 2007 (3) SCALE 397, (New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vedawati and others) and also in case of 2008 (1) PLJR 127 SC (United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Serjeraoand others). In paragraph 8 relied upon the earlier decision in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and others reported in 2007 (7) SCALE 753, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the insurance company has no liability regarding labourers travelling in trolley is concerned. 14. In view of the discussions made above, it appears that the present case is squarely covered by the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. From perusal of impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter that the deceased was travelling on the tractor/trolley, which is not meant for carrying the passengers/coolies. 16. So far quantum is concerned, no arguments were advanced. 17. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation from respondent no.5, owner of the offending vehicle. 16. So far quantum is concerned, no arguments were advanced. 17. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the claimants are entitled to get the amount of compensation from respondent no.5, owner of the offending vehicle. The appellants are also entitled to get the amount recovered from the owner of the vehicle, which has paid to the claimants as interim compensation. 18. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and award are modified to the extent indicated above. 19. Let the statutory amount deposited in this Court be returned to the appellants, as prayed for on behalf of the appellants.