JUDGMENT : ANAND PATHAK, J. 1. Present appeal has been preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 29-03-2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chachoda District Guna whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 70,000/- along with interest with the authority to pay and recover to the Insurance Company. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that around 100 persons were moving in a tractor trolley for offering prayer at Kheda Hanuman Ji Temple and tractor went turtle in which Shivcharan Singh aged 35 years suffered fatally and death has been caused. FIR was registered. Tractor was insured for agriculture purpose. Legal representatives of the deceased Shivcharan filed the claim case in which claimant No. 1 was his mother and claimant No. 2 was his brother. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal after considering fact situation of the case awarded Rs. 70,000/- to the claimants and held the Insurance Company and other respondents liable to pay Rs. 70,000/- along with interest jointly and severally. Against the said award, Insurance Company is before this Court. 4. According to counsel for the appellant, case in hand is not the case of breach of policy condition but a case of no liability of Insurance Company at all because tractor was insured for agriculture purpose only and not for commercial and other purpose. The said insured tractor was used against the terms and conditions of Insurance Company. As per insurance policy, owner has given premium for the risk of driver and not for covering the risk of any other person/employee travelling in the tractor. Here, in the present case admittedly the tractor was used for plying the passengers; that too allowing the passengers to sit over and above the capacity of tractor trolley (around 100 in number), therefore, on the principle of no premium no risk, no contract between owner of vehicle and appellant Insurance Company exist to compensate the victim, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned award in which Insurance Company was held responsible along with owner of the vehicle. He referred paragraphs 11 to 18 of the award and submits that the Claims Tribunal itself has categorically held that tractor was insured for agriculture purpose and it was used for the purpose other than agriculture because admittedly passengers were moving for temple worship. 5. He referred paragraphs 11 to 18 of the award and submits that the Claims Tribunal itself has categorically held that tractor was insured for agriculture purpose and it was used for the purpose other than agriculture because admittedly passengers were moving for temple worship. 5. The numerical strength of passengers as well as purpose for which the tractor trolley was used indicates that it dehors the policy condition and as per Section 147 of he Motor Vehicles Act, no liability can be fastened over the Insurance Company. He relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Bhav Singh v. Smt. Savirani and others, 2008 (1) MPJR (FB) 11 and submits that meaning of third party has been defined in the said judgment and as per the said dictum claimants are not third party. Full Bench of this Court while considering decision of the Division Bench in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarvanlal and others, 2004 (4) MPHT 404 held that it does not lay down the correct law so far as it is held that insurer is liable for death or bodily injury suffered by the passengers. He also relied upon the judgment in the matter of Ramashrya Singh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others, (2003) 10 SCC 664 and contended that in absence of any special contract between owner and insurer right given by the parties under the Act did not require insurer's liability in case of accident. He further relied upon the judgment of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Serjerao and others, 2008 ACJ 254 , Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and others, (2007) 7 SCC 56 and Shankar Lal v. Bakhshibai and others, 2012 (1) MACD 81. 6. As none appeared on behalf of respondents despite service, to submit arguments, therefore, counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is heard and record perused. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal while considering issue No. 1 and 2 in the case in hand has considered testimony of claimants/witnesses in which Nandkishore (AW-3) stated that 25 to 50 persons were in the tractor trolley. 6. As none appeared on behalf of respondents despite service, to submit arguments, therefore, counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is heard and record perused. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal while considering issue No. 1 and 2 in the case in hand has considered testimony of claimants/witnesses in which Nandkishore (AW-3) stated that 25 to 50 persons were in the tractor trolley. Similarly Ajudhya Bai (AW-2) stated that around 100 persons were sitting in the tractor and Premnarayan (AW-1) admitted that around 75 to 100 persons were siting in the tractor, therefore, it is admitted fact that tractor trolley was over crowded and was carrying the persons more than the capacity. The reason for accident was that tractor trolley went turtle or become upside down because of crowd and therefore, no human error was involved or any head on collision was existing in the accident. Accident caused purely because of over crowded arrangement of the passengers. While deciding issue No. 3, learned Claims Tribunal specifically referred the fact that tractor was insured for agriculture purpose, hence, admittedly, tractor was used for other than agriculture purpose and it was used for commercial purpose for taking passengers from one place to another, therefore, it was a case of not only breach of policy condition but principle of no premium no risk would also be attracted. Section 147 of the Act is worth consideration in this regard. 8. Full Bench of this Court while considering the word third party as appeared in the Act specially in Section 147 and 145 of the Act has clarified that the policy would not cover the risk as passengers. The word third party is not wide enough to cover all persons and insurance cover is not available to the passengers. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ramashrya Singh (supra) it has been specifically held that in absence of any special contract between owner and insurer, liability of insurer does not arise. Similarly in the case of Serjerao (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that Insurance Company has no liability in respect of labourers travelling in the tractor trolley. In the case of Brij Mohan (supra) also, same ground has been echoed. 9. Similarly in the case of Serjerao (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held that Insurance Company has no liability in respect of labourers travelling in the tractor trolley. In the case of Brij Mohan (supra) also, same ground has been echoed. 9. Similarly in Shankar Lal's case (supra) this Court held that if the offending vehicle was being used for the purpose other than the agriculture purpose for which it was not insured then Insurance Company was not liable to make payment of compensation. There are catena of other decisions also, but above mentioned judgments are sufficient enough to hold that in the case in hand, Insurance Company is not liable to be fastened with the liability of pay and recover. It is the total liability of owner to burden it for the lapse caused by his driver. 10. Resultantly, impugned award dated 29-03-2003 is modified to the extent that Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability in all manners and in its place, owner and driver of the vehicle i.e. respondents No. 4 & 5 are liable to pay compensation amount as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The award is modified accordingly and Claims Tribunal is directed to refund the amount to appellant/Insurance Company after due verification, if any deposited by the Company. Awarded amount would be recoverable from owner and driver of the vehicle. Learned Tribunal to proceed accordingly. 11. Appeal stands disposed of.