JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in-spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the said respondents. 3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge-I-cum- P.O-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Case No.12 of 2002 whereby and where under the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to the claimants. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased- Mani Lohra aged about 30 years, who used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month, while travelling in the offending tractor as the labourer of the tractor and to used to unload Murom soil, the offending tractor being driven rashly and negligently met with an accident in which the deceased fell down from the tractor and the tractor ran over him resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased and he died on his way to being taken to the hospital and criminal case was also registered. Before the Tribunal, the insurance company did not file the written statement within the stipulated time. Hence, the insurance company was debarred from filing the written statement but later on the opposite parties filed their written statement but did not take any steps for acceptance of written statement. 5. Considering the materials in the record, the Tribunal formulated the following four issues:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Have the claimants valid cause of action for the case? (iii) Was the deceased died in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle? (iv) Are the claimants entitled to the claimed amount and if so, from whom and up to what extent? 6. The learned Tribunal considered the evidence of P.W.1 and also the documents proved being the FIR, copy of the postmortem report, insurance paper and driving licence of the driver- Dhani Lohara which have been marked Exts. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence but the opposite party no.3 filed the report with regard to the driving licence of the driver- Dhani Lohara which was marked Ext. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The opposite parties did not adduce any evidence but the opposite party no.3 filed the report with regard to the driving licence of the driver- Dhani Lohara which was marked Ext. A. The learned Tribunal considered the evidence in the record and came to the conclusion that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the claim petition is maintainable. It was further held that there is valid cause of action for filing this claim application and ordered that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- but since the claimants have already received Rs.50,000/- in respect of application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, directed the appellant-insurance company to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to the claimants. 7. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. Santosh Kumar, submits that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the deceased was travelling in the tractor insured under Kissan Pakage policy for using the tractor for agricultural purposes but it is admitted fact that the driver was driving the tractor loaded with Murom so it cannot be said that the tractor was used for agricultural purposes. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since both the applications under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act and under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act were given the same number i.e. Compensation Case No.12 of 2002 and the appellant-insurance company has filed the written statement in this case of course, in respect of an application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the same in respect of an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act also. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance company be absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination that crop up in this appeal is:- “Whether the insurance company is to be absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and if yes, who is to pay the compensation to the claimants?” 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, undisputedly, the tractor was involved in transportation of the Murom soil. There is no material in the record to suggest that the Murom soil was transported for any agricultural purposes and in that view of the matter as the tractor was used for the purpose other than the one specified under the policy (Ext.3) more specifically was being used for nonagricultural purposes, the insured has violated the terms of the kissan pakage policy, a copy of which has been kept as Ext. 3, hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount but it is the insured owner of the vehicle who has to pay the compensation amount. 10. In view of the settled principle of law as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manuara Khatun & Ors. v. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors., reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796 , para- 22 of which reads as under:- “22. Accordingly, the appeals succeed and are allowed. Impugned order is modified to the extent that Respondent 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is accordingly directed to pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants). Thereafter Respondent 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. would be entitled to recover the entire paid awarded sum from the owner (insured) of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent 1 in these very proceedings by filing execution application against the insured.” As the policy of the insurance is not in dispute, this is a fit case where the appellant-insurance company be directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,20,000/- over and above the amount paid under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act by depositing the said amount before the Tribunal to be paid to the respondent nos.1 to 5 who are the claimants in this appeal with a right to recover the same from the owner of the tractor-trailer in the same proceeding. The sole point of determination is answered accordingly. 11. The sole point of determination is answered accordingly. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and award dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge-I-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Case No.12 of 2002 is modified by absolving the insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation amount and by holding that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the remaining compensation amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the claimants, if already not paid and the appellant-insurance company is given the right to recover the compensation amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the offending vehicle by way of execution of the order as per the law laid down in paragraph no.26 of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul & Anr., reported in (2013) 2 SCC 41 . 12. In the result, this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge-I-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Case No.12 of 2002. 13. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to return Rs.25,000/- if any, deposited by the appellant in connection with this appeal to the concerned officer of the appellant-insurance company upon the appellant satisfying that it has already paid the entire claimed amount to the claimants within two months from the date of this judgment failing which, the said amount be remitted to the concerned Tribunal by appropriate mode after two months from the date of this judgment. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.