ORDER 1. This misc. appeal has been been filed by the appellant Insurance Company/non claimant No. 3 being aggrieved by the award date 5.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Vidisha in Claim Case No. 07/2017 on the ground that the deceased Hajarilal was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor and died when tractor turned turtle, therefore, Insurance Company needs to be exonerated from its liability to satisfy the award. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of M.A.No.588/2004 - The National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Ram Murti Bai and others, decided on 6.3.2019 so also on the judgment of High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla and others, as reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 and Sardari and others v. Sushil Kumar and others, as reported in 2008 ACJ 1307 . 3. Counsel for the appellant also submits that as per evidence of Smt. Pan Kushwah (D.W.3), who was posted in the office of R.T.O. Vidisha, learning licence to Ravi Dhakad alias Golu s/o Shivlal Dhakad was issued on 28.9.2016 and he was not having learning licence even on 25.9.2016 and therefore was not entitled to drive a tractor on the date of the accident on 25.9.2016. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants submits that accident had not taken place when the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor but there is ample evidence on record that Gajraj Kushwah had taken deceased Hajarilal to plough his field in a Sonalika Brand of tractor bearing registration No. M.P.40-A.B.-4099 when one arm of plough got deeply embedded in the soil when Hajarilal had stepped down from the tractor and was taking out such hand of the plough when suddenly driver of the tractor had rashly and negligently driven the tractor when it turned turtle and Hajarilal died after being crushed under the rear tyre of the tractor. It is submitted that since accident took place when deceased Hajarilal was not on the mudguard, but was trying to take out one of the arm of the plough, therefore, he can not be considered as a gratuitous passenger on the tractor at the time of accident dis-entitling claimants to claim compensation on the ground that sitting capacity of a tractor is just one i.e., driver and nobody else is permitted to sit on the mudguard or any other part of the tractor and therefore there was no violation of any condition of the insurance policy exonerating the owner, driver and insurer. 5. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that in the FIR (Ex.P-2), which was lodged by Charan Singh Kushwah, it is evident that story developed by claimants that arm of plough had got stuck in the soil due to which Hajarilal had stepped down from tractor and was trying to take it out when such incident took place is contrary to the contents of the FIR, in which it is clearly mentioned that since one of the arm of the plough had broken, therefore, they were returning home to get it repaired when tractor being driven by Golu had turned turtle, then Hajarilal, Charansingh and Arvind, who were sitting on the mudguard had fallen down sustaining injuries. Hajarilal sustained grievous injuries, as a result of which he died. 6. Diman Singh (PW1) father of Hajarilal has admitted that at the time of accident Hajarilal, Gajraj Singh, Ravi, Ghasiram, Golu, Kishan Singh, Charan Singh and Arvind all were sitting on the tractor. Ghasiram (PW2) has also admitted that thee persons were sitting on the tractor but both of these witnesses are not eye witnesses. 7. Defence has examined Ravi @ Golu in their support, who was driving the tractor and in cross-examination he has admitted that when they were returning back to home after ploughing, tractor had turned turtle when Hajarilal died. Thus, there is evidence of the driver of the tractor that accident had taken place when tractor turned turtle and Hajarilal died. There is no suggestion that Hajarilal was not sitting on the mudguard but was on the field taking out arm of the plough when such incident took place. Thus, there is evidence of the driver of the tractor that accident had taken place when tractor turned turtle and Hajarilal died. There is no suggestion that Hajarilal was not sitting on the mudguard but was on the field taking out arm of the plough when such incident took place. Therefore, in the light of such evidence available on record, award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover it from the owner and driver only on the ground of nonavailability of the valid driving evidence, over looking the fact that no passengers are allowed on the tractor mudguard to travel, can not be sustained, specially in the light of the law laid down decided in the case of Smt. Ram Murti Bai (supra). 8. Shri Madhur Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 and 5 press for cross objection (I.A.No. 2205/2019) for setting aside the adverse finding against the owner and driver recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal on issue No. 1 and 4. 9. In view of the discussion made above, such finding can not be disturbed and therefore cross-objections (I.A.No. 2205/2019) filed by the respondents No. 4 and 5 are rejected. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Insurance Company is exonerated from satisfying the claim. Claimants will be entitled to recover the awarded compensation from the owner and driver of the tractor.