ORDER : R.S. Jha, J. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 15-2-2014, passed by the A.M.A.C.T. Damoh in Claim Case No.114/2013 whereby the claim of the respondent/claimant has been allowed and a compensation of Rs.2,86,143/- has been awarded to him. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ insurance company that the accident occurred while the claimant was using the tractor that was insured was being used for the purposes of threshing. It is submitted that on account of the negligence on the part of the claimant his right hand went inside the thresher and was required to be amputated. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the appellant/insurance company cannot be held liable as using of the tractor with the thresher was not covered by the policy. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record it is observed that the Tribunal, by relying on two decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of United India Insurance Company, Limited v. Anandibai, 2009(3) ACCD 1753 (M. P.) and United India Insurance Company, Limited v. Rajendra and others, 2010(1) ACCD 444 (M. P.) wherein under similar circumstances of use of tractor for threshing, this Court has held the insurance company liable for paying compensation and has allowed the claim of the claimants. It is also observed that the Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding to the effect that while operating the tractor on account of negligence on the part of the driver concerned the accelerator was suddenly pressed, as a result of which speed of the thresher increased suddenly and the right hand of the claimant went inside the thresher causing injury to the claimant. In the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal, by relying on the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court has awarded compensation. 5. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or manifest irregularity in the impugned award, warranting interference of this Court, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed.