JUDGMENT 1. This Misc. Appeal under Sec. 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dtd. 07/12/2012 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ashoknagar, (M.P.) in Claim Case No.31/2011 by which Claims Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1, 64, 000.00 in favour of the claimants. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that on the date of incident i.e. 27/04/2011, respondent/claimant No.1 alongwith his wife Munni Bai and granddaughter- Khushbu went to mandi to sell the crop of masoor in the tractor bearing registration No. MP-40-AA-4225 owned by the appellant/owner - Bisan Singh and at about 8:00 p.m, when they were coming back to home in the said tractor-trolley, after crossing the Bhadona, the appellant/driver who drove the tractor in a very rash and negligent manner due to which tractor was overturned and deceased Munni Bai died on the spot. 3. The respondent/claimant No.1 to 3 filed the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. Learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1, 64, 000.00 in favour of claimants. Tribunal has exonerated the respondent No.4/non-applicant No.2- Insurance Company from the liability to pay the compensation as there was breach of policy. Learned claims tribunal directed the appellant/non-applicant No.1 to pay the compensation against which this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned order is contrary to law and contrary to the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case. 5. The appellant/respondent No.1 i.e. owner of the vehicle submitted its reply before the Tribunal and denied the contents of the claim petition and pleaded that claim petition is filed on false footings and also denied that no accident was caused with its tractor and at the time of the accident, the driver was having valid driving licence. 6. The respondent No.4/non-applicant No.2 Insurance Company filed its reply and denied the contents of the claim petition and took the defense that the offending vehicle was insured with it for agricultural purposes and the premium was paid only for driver, however, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven for the purpose of business, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 7. 7. The Insurance Company examined (DW-1) Manoj Bhatt to prove its defense, the witness corroborated the policy of the offending vehicle vide Exh. D/5. 8. On perusal of Exh. D/5, it is clear that the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes. 9. The defense taken by respondent No.4/Insurance Company is that Bisan Singh used his tractor and trolley against the terms of policy for the purpose of carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. 10. The oral evidence of the witness (PW-1) Daulat Singh, reveals that at the time of accident, he alongwith the deceased was sitting on the trolley. At para-14, he categorically stated that he had taken the tractor and trolley on rent from Bisan Singh and the incident occurred while coming back from Ashoknagar after selling the crop of masoor. (PW-2) Prakash Singh has also corroborated the above facts. 11. The appellant/owner at para-7 of his cross examination himself admitted that he got the tractor insured for agricultural purposes not for carrying passengers. He had not paid any premium for carrying the passengers. 12. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Babulal and other [ 2012 ACJ 2054 ], National Insurance Company Company Ltd. [ 2014 (1) TAC 870 (M.P.)] and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma, [ 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC)], the Apex Court held that the use of tractor for agricultural purposes would not be considered to mean that tractor-trolley can be used for carriage of goods by another person for its business activities and held that the vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes. 13. In view of above, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly held that at the time of accident, the offending tractor bearing registration No.MP-40-AA-4225 was being driven against the terms of the Insurance Policy. 14. Consequently, impugned award passed by claims tribunal is found to be in accordance with law and does not call for interference. 15. In the light of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant/owner stands dismissed. 16. The respondents No.1 to 3/claimants have also filed the cross- objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC for enhancement of compensation for which court fees is required to be paid as that on the memo of appeal under the provisions of the Court Fees Act. 16. The respondents No.1 to 3/claimants have also filed the cross- objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC for enhancement of compensation for which court fees is required to be paid as that on the memo of appeal under the provisions of the Court Fees Act. However, the claimants have not paid the court fees on cross objection, therefore, on account of failure to follow mandatory provisions of law the Cross-objection is not found to be maintainable; hence, dismissed.