JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.2011, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.36 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - II Additional Sub Court, Nagarcoil.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.36 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional Sub Court, Nagarcoil. 2. The appellant herein was the third respondent, the respondents 1 to 3 herein were the claimants, the fourth respondent herein was the first respondent and the fifth respondent herein was the second respondent in the original claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.36 of 2009. 3. Brief substance of the petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.36 of 2009 is as follows:- The deceased was working as Hitachi Machine operator in Vinayaka Earth Moving and Lorry Services and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as salary and Rs.100/- as daily battta. The second respondent is the owner of the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-72-R-4288. On 01.10.2004, at about 19.00 hours, the first respondent drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to the impact, the deceased fell down from the Tractor and he sustained injuries and he died on the spot. The petitioners are his dependents and they claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation. 4. Brief substance of the counter of the third respondent in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.36 of 2009 is as follows:- The vehicle was permitted to be used only for agricultural purpose. But, the respondents 1 and 2 permitted the deceased to travel in the Tractor tool box. The seating capacity of a Tractor is only for the driver. Allowing the deceased to travel in the Tractor is a violation of policy condition. The Tractor was not used for agricultural purpose, at the time of accident. This respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 5. On the side of the petitioners, three witnesses were examined and eight documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and two documents were marked. 6. The Tribunal after considering both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.6,12,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Against the award, the Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tractor is not permitted to carry passengers. The deceased violated the policy conditions. 6. The Tribunal after considering both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.6,12,000/- as compensation to the claimants. Against the award, the Insurance Company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Tractor is not permitted to carry passengers. The deceased violated the policy conditions. The deceased travelled on the mudguard of the Tractor and he tried to open the tool box, which was placed under the mudguard, while the vehicle was moving and the deceased died due to his own negligence. The award is excessive. 8. On the side of the appellant, it is further stated that the policy is a farmers package policy and that only the driver is competent to travel in the Tractor and that the vehicle was not used for agricultural purpose, at the time of accident and that the deceased was not covered by the policy, as there was no seating capacity to carry a passenger and that the deceased also is liable for contributory negligence. 9. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (2) T.A.C.- 8 (SC) [New India Assurance Co.Ltd., V. Vedwati and others], wherein, it is stated as follows: “14. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor.” 10. Another judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (2) T.A.C.-711 (Madras) [National Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Benit Rose and others] is cited. Judgment of this Court reported in 2011 (1) T.A.C.-953 (Madras) [Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., V. Sulochana and others], wherein, it is stated as follows:- “1. The allegations found in the Claim Petition are as follows: The first and second applicants are parents of Jalander aged 20 who was working under the first opposite party in a tractor bearing Regn. No.TN 20 M 8535. On 10.06.2005 while in the course of employment at about 12.00 when the tractor was coming from Kanambakkam to Konda Nellore, the vehicle going near Mugutha Chettiar land, the same was driven by the driver by name R.Vasu in a negligent manner and hence a jolt occurred resulting in Jalander falling down from the mud guard seat of the tractor and was run over by the tractor tyre. He was immediately taken to hospital where he was declared dead. He was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- as wages per month under the employment of first opposite party. The case was registered in Crime No. 161/2005 under Section 279 and 304A I.P.C., and the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the tractor. The vehicle was insured with the second opposite party which was valid from 08.07.2004 to 08.07.2005. The deceased was the only breadwinner of the family. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is claimed as compensation. The third and fourth claimants are minor sister and brother of the deceased. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant also garnered support from the Division Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in 2007-ACJ- 536 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, V. D.Laxman and others) wherein it is held that when the trailer was not insured, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the workman who were going by the trailer. 8. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the principle laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court stated supra is applicable and the insurance company cannot be made liable for payment of compensation.” 11. On the side of the respondents 1 to 3/claimants, it is stated that the vehicle was used for agricultural purpose. In the F.I.R/Ex.P1, it is stated that the vehicle was returning, after the completion of agricultural work. In Ex.R1/investigation report of the Insurance Company also it was admitted that the vehicle was returning back from agricultural work. If there is any policy violations, the Insurance Company can pay the claimants and can recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. A judgment of this Court in C.M.A. (MD)No.584 of 2012, dated 13.02.2019, is cited. 12. On the side of the first respondent, it is stated that even for gratuitous passengers, an order of pay and recovery can be made. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2017(1) TNMAC-289 (SC) [Manuara Khatun & others V. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others] is cited. 13. On the side of the respondents 4 and 5, it is stated that the driver was having valid driving licence and the policy was in force. There was no wordings in the policy, as to the coverage of driver alone. The deceased travelled in the Tractor as a load men. 13. On the side of the respondents 4 and 5, it is stated that the driver was having valid driving licence and the policy was in force. There was no wordings in the policy, as to the coverage of driver alone. The deceased travelled in the Tractor as a load men. The Tractor was used for agricultural purpose. A judgment of this Court reported in 2013(2) TNMAC-620 [New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V. P.Vinayagasundaram (died)] is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows: “9. Another contention of the Insurance Company that the deceased was working only as a cleaner in the tractor at the time of accident and no premium was paid to the cleaner under the policy of the above vehicle, hence, the Insurance Company is not entitled to pay any compensation to the deceased family does not carry any merit, for the reason that when the tractor was used for unloading the sand in the land belonging to the owner of the vehicle, it has to be construed that loading and unloading in the agricultural field by the tractor has to be a part of the agricultural work, more particularly, in the present case, since PW2-Kannan also stated that when the sand was unloaded in the Ulaganathan's field, the accident had occurred killing the victim, since he was covered by the sand.” 14. F.I.R was registered against the driver of the Tractor. Observation Mahazer and rough sketch were marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Motor Vehicle Inspector's report was marked as Ex.P4. Investigation Report was marked as Ex.R1. The respondents have not examined any witness, to substantiate Ex.R1. Hence, it is decided that the driver of the Tractor is responsible for the accident. 15. Policy copy was marked as Ex.R2. The policy was in force, at the time of accident. The contention of the appellant is that the policy was Farmer's Package Policy and there was no coverage for a load men. The Tractor driver permitted the deceased to sit in the mudguard of the vehicle. The fifth respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle. 16. On the side of the first respondent/claimant, it is stated that though a Tractor was used for agricultural purpose, even if separate premium is not paid, the load man is entitled to compensation. The Tractor driver permitted the deceased to sit in the mudguard of the vehicle. The fifth respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle. 16. On the side of the first respondent/claimant, it is stated that though a Tractor was used for agricultural purpose, even if separate premium is not paid, the load man is entitled to compensation. A judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, reported in 2011-ACJ-2054 (Mounesh V. Thimmanna and another) is cited, wherein, it is decided that even though there is a violation of policy condition, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the award amount and to recover the same from the petitioner of the offending vehicle. 17. Another Judgment of this Court made in C.M.A.(MD)No.584 of 2012, dated 13.02.2019 is cited by the claimant, wherein, the Insurance Company was directed to pay for the load man of a Tractor. 18. In the case cited above premium was paid for employee and hence, the above citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case. There was no question of coverage of policy in both the cases referred above. In the present case, there is question of policy coverage, no premium was paid either for cleaner or for a load man. In the above circumstances, these citations are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 19. On the side of the fifth respondent/owner of the vehicle, it is stated that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the load man in a Tractor. A judgment of this Court reported in 2013(2) TNMAC-620 [New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V. P.Vinayagasundaram (died)] is cited. 20. The main dispute in the case cited above is with regard to the applicability of Workmen Compensation Act or the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no question of premium paid for load man. In the above circumstances, this citation also is not applicable, to the facts of the present case. 21. A perusal of the policy reveals that no premium was paid for an employee, cleaner or load man. There is no policy coverage for an employee, hence, it is decided that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The owner of the vehicle has not filed any appeal questioning the award passed by the Tribunal. A perusal of the policy reveals that no premium was paid for an employee, cleaner or load man. There is no policy coverage for an employee, hence, it is decided that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The owner of the vehicle has not filed any appeal questioning the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, it is decided that the amount fixed by the Tribunal as compensation is reasonable. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability and the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 22. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The fifth respondent herein/owner of the vehicle is directed to deposit Rs.6,12,000/- as compensation along with proportionate interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of deposit and with cost within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the major claimant/first respondent is permitted to withdraw her respective share with proportionate interest as per the ratio fixed by the Tribunal, after deducting any amount received by her earlier. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimants/respondents 2 and 3 in any one of the Nationalised Banks, in a Fixed Deposit scheme, till they attain majority. The first respondent, who is the mother and guardian of the minor claimants, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank, only for the welfare of minors. The Claimants are not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any default. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.