JUDGMENT : SUBHASH CHAND, J. The instant miscellaneous appeal has been preferred on behalf of Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited dissatisfied with the award dated 16.12.2016 passed in M. Accident Claim Case No.10/2004 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge cum Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Deoghar directing to the Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.8,79,000/- within 30 days and also directed that 50% of the total amount will be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of 5 years for future prospects of the minor and out of rest 50% an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- will paid to applicant no.6 Gayatri Devi and Rs.1,00,000/- will be paid to the father applicant no.7 Dhananjay Pd. Singh. Rest amount will be paid to the widow Usha Devi for welfare of herself and her children. 2. The brief facts leading to this Miscellaneous Appeal are the claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimants with these averments that the deceased was working as a Khalasi of the Tractor. On 22.11.2003 a Chaukidar No.02/13 Reva Turi had lodged the FIR with these allegations that at 11:30 in day hours he was going from Baraguniya to Madhupur about 12:30 hours he reached near the village Dondiya and saw a tractor without any registration number coming from the west side. Tractor driver was driving the tractor rashly and negligently and at village Dondiya the tractor went into the ditch. Kamal Kishore Singh who was also riding over the tractor fell down from the tractor and tractor turned down upon him. On raising hulla he also reached there and said Kamal Kishore Singh was crushed by the tractor. The body was brought out with the help of the persons present there but Kamal Kishore Singh had died at the spot. On this fardbeyan of chaukidar Madhupur P.S. Case No. 279/03 was registered under section 279/304A of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and after investigation the charge-sheet was also filed by the investigating officer against driver namely Mahadeo Rai u/s 279 and 304A of IPC. It is also further averred in the claim petition that deceased Kamal Kishore Singh was 25 years old on the date of his death. He was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The registration number of the tractor was JH15A 8253 and registration number of the trailer was JH15A 8254. It is also further averred in the claim petition that deceased Kamal Kishore Singh was 25 years old on the date of his death. He was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The registration number of the tractor was JH15A 8253 and registration number of the trailer was JH15A 8254. After his death deceased has left his widow, two minor daughter, two minor sons, mother and father as well who are the claimants 1 to 7 in this claim petition as such the amount of compensation was prayed. It was also averred by the claimants that the deceased was a skill labour working as the tractor. 3. The opposite party no.3 (Respondent No.8 herein) Mahadeo Ray did not file any written statement despite service of notice to him. On behalf of opposite party no.1 (Respondent No.7 herein) Gour Kishore Shahi the owner of the offending tractor filed the written statement that the said tractor was ensured on the date of accident and was driven by its driver with a valid and effective driving licence, if any liability arises for the same, Insurance Company is liable. 4. On behalf of Insurance Company opposite party no.2 (Appellant herein) filed the written statement and stated that deceased was not a skilled labour as he was working on the tractor to load and unload the bricks of the tractor for which the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The death of the labour who was working on the tractor the proper forum for him was to move the application for compensation under Workmen Compensation Act. The registration number of the offending tractor and the trailer was not trailer as stated same was not mentioned in the claim petition. The onus is on the claimants to prove the averment made in the claim petition. The driver of the tractor was driving it without a valid and effective driving license. There being the breech of the conditions of the policy as the tractor was not used for the agriculture purpose, it was for the commercial purpose as such prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The learned Tribunal has framed the eight issues read as under: (I) Is the claim petition as framed maintainable? (II) Have the claimants got valid cause of action against the opposite parties? (III) Whether the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was having a valid licence? 5. The learned Tribunal has framed the eight issues read as under: (I) Is the claim petition as framed maintainable? (II) Have the claimants got valid cause of action against the opposite parties? (III) Whether the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was having a valid licence? (IV) Whether the deceased Kamal Kishore Singh died on 22.11.03 in a motor vehicle accident by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle (tractor and trailor) bearing registration no. JH15A-8253 and JH15A-8254 respectively? (V) Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation as claimed in the petition and if entitled then what would be the quantum of compensation and paid by whom? (VI) Whether the claimants are entitled for any other relief or relieves as claimed? (VII) What was the age of the deceased at the time of his death? (VIII) Whether the offending vehicle was properly insured on the date of accident in the company of opp. Party no.2 or not? 6. On behalf of the claimants in documentary evidence filed photo copy of the PM report Exhibit-1, FIR Exhibit-2, Charge-sheet Exhibit-3, Heirship document Exhibit-4, Photo copy of the registration certificate (RC) of the vehicle Exhibit-X/1, Photo copy of the certificate of insurance Exhibit-X/3, photo copy of the driving license Exhibit-X/5, certificate of fitness Exhibit-6 and in oral evidence examined PW1- Vinay Kumar Singh, PW2- Vidhyanand Rai, PW3- Dhananjay Prasad Singh, PW4- Usha Devi, PW5- Chhotelal Yadav, PW6- Arjun Prasad and PW7- Dr. Chandra Kishor Shahi. 7. On behalf of Insurance Company no evidence oral or documentary was adduced. 8. The learned Tribunal after hearing the rival submission of parties passed the impugned award as stated hereinabove. 9. The appellant Insurance Company has challenged this impugned award on the ground that the deceased was a labour working for the tractor owner and he does not come within the ambit of third party. It is also further submitted that the said tractor was not used for the agriculture purpose as such the learned Tribunal has committed legal error in allowing the claim petition directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation. In view of section 147 of the M.V. Act the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 10. It is also further submitted that the said tractor was not used for the agriculture purpose as such the learned Tribunal has committed legal error in allowing the claim petition directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay the compensation. In view of section 147 of the M.V. Act the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 10. On behalf of the respondents the learned counsel vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that admittedly the offending tractor alongwith trolley was ensured by the appellant Insurance Company and the policy was Kishan Package Insurance Policy being comprehensive, the Insurance Company was very much liable to pay the compensation. 11. For disposal of this appeal, the only point of determination which is to be disposed of by this Court: (I) Whether the appellant Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation or not? 11.1 Admittedly the offending tractor and the trailer was insured by the appellant Insurance Company, the photo copy of the insurance policy is Exhibit-X/3. From the perusal of the same it is found that it was a Kishan Package Policy. The owner of the tractor is Gour Kishore Shahi. This policy was valid and effective from 17.10.2003 to 16.10.2004. The date of accident is 12.11.2003 as such this insurance policy was valid and effective on the date of accident. From the perusal of the same it is found that the tractor and trailer both are covered from this policy. This policy was Kishan Package Policy and Kishan Package Policy is a comprehensive policy which is designed by the Oriental Insurance Company to cover losses arising out of a wide variety of risks and perils. It lets a farmer concentrate on the business, free of many worries. The policy is divided into 15 sections offering protection to the farmer to his personal effects, household goods, livestock, poultry, personal insurance and Mediclaim. 11.2 Herein it would be pertinent to evaluate the evidence of the eye witness of the accident, just to highlight for what purpose the tractor was being used on which the deceased was a labourer. 11.3 PW1- Vinay Kumar Singh is the eye witness. He has stated that he had seen the tractor JH15A 8253 which was driven by its driver Mahadeo Ray rashly and negligently and the tractor fell into the ditch. 11.3 PW1- Vinay Kumar Singh is the eye witness. He has stated that he had seen the tractor JH15A 8253 which was driven by its driver Mahadeo Ray rashly and negligently and the tractor fell into the ditch. Kamal Kishore Singh was khalasi on the tractor, he also died. In cross-examination this witness has stated that the deceased was labourer on the tractor. 11.4 PW2- Vidhyanand Rai is also the eye witness. This witness in his examination-in-chief corroborated the claim case in regard to the accident. In cross-examination this witness has stated that he has seen the accident from his own eye. The deceased was labourer on the tractor. 11.5 From the oral evidence on record there is nothing like that the said tractor was being used for commercial purpose. Nothing is on record that what was carried by the trailer at the time of accident so as to ascertain the tractor was being used for commercial purpose other than the agriculture purpose . 11.6 On behalf of the Insurance Company no contrary evidence, oral or documentary has been adduced . 12. The policy of the tractor and trailer Exhibit-X/3 Which was a Kishan Package Insurance Policy. This policy was a comprehensive policy. Therefore, I am of considered view that the deceased who was labourer would also be covered with the policy and Insurance Company cannot evade from the liability . 12.1 The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in “ New India Assurance Company Limited v. Usha Devi (Kumari) ” (2013) 1 ACC 802 held where death of two laborers were caused while travelling on the tractor for loading sugarcane on the instruction of other employer. Comprehensive policy covers all risks except the loss caused by fraudulent of ensured. Insurance Company is liable to pay. In this context, para nos. 19, 20, 21 & 25 read as under: “19. Here, it is a case where deaths were caused due to use of Motor Vehicle and in the course of employment. The two persons were in the tractor in the course of their employments to bring the sugarcanes. 20. It has been found as a fact that these two unfortunate labourers were travelling in the tractor which is goods carriage for the purposes of loading of sugarcane on the instructions of their employer. The two persons were in the tractor in the course of their employments to bring the sugarcanes. 20. It has been found as a fact that these two unfortunate labourers were travelling in the tractor which is goods carriage for the purposes of loading of sugarcane on the instructions of their employer. This being so, the risk of injury or death caused to them in the course of employment would be covered under the insurance policy. 21. There is another angle also. We have examined the original record containing insurance cover. It is mentioned thereunder that the insurance policy is comprehensive policy , the fact which was also pleaded by the owners in their written statement. In the insurance cover, it is not mentioned that the policy is ' Act policy— instead it is ' Comp. Ins.— . It implies that the insurance policy was comprehensive insurance policy, so also has been found by the Workmen— s Compensation Commissioner. This being so, obviously the risk of lives of labourers and bodily injuries would also be covered under the insurance policy. 25. In view of the fact that the insurance policy in the present case being comprehensive insurance it would cover all risk insurance except loss caused by fraudulent act by the insured . The burden was upon the insurer to produce copy of insurance policy to show that the case on hand, was under the except clause, if any. 25. In view of the fact that the insurance policy in the present case being comprehensive insurance it would cover all risk insurance except loss caused by fraudulent act by the insured . The burden was upon the insurer to produce copy of insurance policy to show that the case on hand, was under the except clause, if any. It was neither pleaded nor proved by the insurer that they are not liable to compensate the claimants notwithstanding the fact that it is a case of comprehensive insurance.” 12.2 It would be pertinent to mention Sections 147 and 149 of the M.V. Act, 1988 which reads as under: “ Section 147:- Requirement of policies and limits of liability .—(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which— (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the motor vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a transport vehicle, except gratuitous passengers of a goods vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place, notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained under any other law for the time being in force, for the purposes of third party insurance related to either death of a person or grievous hurt to a person, the Central Government shall prescribe a base premium and the liability of an insurer in relation to such premium for an insurance policy under sub-section (1) in consultation with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected, a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a policy of Insurance issued before the commencement of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 shall be continued on the existing terms under the contract and the provisions of this Act shall apply as if this Act had not been amended by the said Act. (5) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules or regulations made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the specified time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.] Section 149:- Settlement by insurance company and procedure therefor .—(1) The insurance company shall, upon receiving information of the accident, either from claimant or through accident information report or otherwise, designate an officer to settle the claims relating to such accident. (2) An officer designated by the insurance company for processing the settlement of claim of compensation may make an offer to the claimant for settlement before the Claims Tribunal giving such details, within thirty days and after following such procedure as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (3) If, the claimant to whom the offer is made under sub-section (2),— (a) accepts such offer,— (i) the Claims Tribunal shall make a record of such settlement, and such claim shall be deemed to be settled by consent; and (ii) the payment shall be made by the insurance company within a maximum period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such record of settlement; (b) rejects such offer, a date of hearing shall be fixed by the Claims Tribunal to adjudicate such claim on merits.]” 12.3 The Hon’ble Apex Court in “ Fahim Ahmad v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. ” AIR 2014 SC 2187 held that tractor hit deceased from behind resulting in death merely the trailer was attached with the tractor carrying sand for irrigation at the time of accident does not mean that the tractor was used for commercial purpose. Insurance Company neither pleaded the breech of condition nor added evidence to that effect Insurance Company will be liable. In this context, para nos. 5 and 6 read as under: 5.A perusal of the records shows that, at the time of the “ accident, a trolley was attached with the tractor, which was carrying sand for the purpose of construction of underground tank near the farm land for irrigation purpose(s). However, merely because it was carrying sand would not mean that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose and consequently, there was a breach of the condition of policy on the part of the insured. There is nothing on record to show that the tractor was being used for commercial purpose(s) or purpose(s) other than agricultural purpose(s), i.e., for hire or reward, as contemplated under Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) of the said Act. 6.Although the plea of breach of the conditions of policy was raised before the Tribunal, yet neither any issue was framed nor any evidence led to prove the same. In our opinion, it was mandatory for respondent No. 1- Insurance Company not only to plead the said breach, but also substantiate the same by adducing positive evidence in respect of the same. In our opinion, it was mandatory for respondent No. 1- Insurance Company not only to plead the said breach, but also substantiate the same by adducing positive evidence in respect of the same. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be presumed that there was breach of the conditions of policy. Thus, there was no reason to fasten the said liability of payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the appellants herein.” 12.4 The Hon’ble Apex Court in “ National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan & Anr. ” 2012 AIR SCW 6286 and “ Bhagyalakshmi v. United India Insurance Company ” 2009 (7) SCC 148 held that section 147(1) of the M.V. Act “Act Policy” does not cover third party risk of the occupant of car but in comprehensive/package policy certainly Insurance Company is bound to indemnify to the passenger or the occupant of the vehicle. In this context, para no. 21 reads as under: 21. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no “scintilla of doubt that a "comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an "Act Policy" stands on a different footing from a "Comprehensive/Package Policy". As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a "Comprehensive/Package Policy" covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the "Act Policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a "Comprehensive/Package Policy", the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (2009 AIR SCW 5325) (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been SCW6296 reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.” 13. In the case in hand the policy of the offending tractor and trailer was a Kishan Package Policy and same was comprehensive policy. In the case in hand the policy of the offending tractor and trailer was a Kishan Package Policy and same was comprehensive policy. It offers protection to the farmer to his personal effects, household goods, livestock, poultry, personal insurance and Mediclaim. As such the deceased who was labourer upon the tractor and the said accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor as a result of which, the said tractor fell down in the ditch causing death of the labour deceased at the spot. After his death the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation since the insurance policy of the vehicle was a comprehensive policy . 14. In view of the analysis of the evidence on record, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference . Accordingly, this miscellaneous appeal deserves to be dismissed . 15. The Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal in M. Accident Claim Case No. 10/2004 is hereby affirmed . 16. Let the record of learned court below be sent back alongwith copy of the judgment. 17. Let the learned Tribunal be communicated in regard to the judgment. The statutory amount, if any, be sent back to the learned Tribunal.