2. In the present appeal the Insurance Company is challenging the judgment dated 28.4.2012 and award dated 8.5.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Gaya-cum- M ACT, Gaya in MAC Case No.87 of 2009/124 of 2011 by which Motor Vehicle Tribunal directed for payment of compensation amount of Rs. 3,14,000/-.

3. Brief facts of the case is that on 6.2.2009 at about 10.30 A.M. the victim was coming from Kukiyasan on a tractor, whose engine number is E 3051796 and chasis no. is B3048170. When the tractor reached 700 yards north of Alipur bazaar on main road the said tractor turned turtle due to its rash and negligent driving of its driver. The deceased fell down, came under the wheel of trailor and died on the spot. On the statement of Biltan Paswan, a police case vide Buniyadgang P.S. Case No.15 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the tractor. The post-mortem of dead body of victim was conducted at A.N.M.M.C.H, Gaya, later on claim application was filed.

4. In the First Information Report it has been mentioned that on 6.2.2009 in the morning the victim had gone to bring the brick for the construction of the house and was coming along with brick. He was sitting along with the labourer met with a major accident and died.

5. The appellant in the claim application stated that the fact as mentioned in the First Information Report, made claim of compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- including the interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

6. The Insurance Company appeared and stated that the driver of the tractor was not holding valid driving licence of the tractor at the time of accident. The policy of insurance is covered under the farmer package and is liable to pay compensation where an accident takes place in agricultural work but in the instant case the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

7. In support of case their respective case parties have brought documentary as well as oral evidence, produced the First Information Report that has been marked as Ext. 1. Post mortem report of victim was marked as Ext.2. Ext.3 is insurance policy and Ext.4 is sale letter of the tractor. Altogether three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant. They have stated that that victim was on the tractor and on account of negligent driving the tractor turned turtle, he died at the spot. It has been stated that the victim was engaged in hawking domestic utensils on head load but in the cross-examination it has been stated that he was coming on the tractor along with brick. All the witnesses have repeated/reiterated stated the same statement. The tribunal has found that the claimant was entitled to the compensation and calculated the same.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that policy of the tractor was for agricultural, not for the commercial purposes. It is apparently clear that the victim was coming on tractor with brick from the brick kiln. He has further submitted that as the accident has taken place while he was coming on the tractor which has no capacity of sitting except the driver. So much so as per the case of the claimant that he was sitting on the tailor and tailor was not ensured and as such claimant is not entitled for any compensation from Insurance Company. He has further submitted that mere coverage of tractor under insurance policy will not epso facto will be deemed that tailor was also covers under that policy. The tractor was covered under insurance for agricultural purposes, coverage of insurance was confined to only for agricultural purposes, not for other purposes and submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly allowed the claim of the appellant and requires interference by this Court.

9. Respondent claimant resisted the claim of the appellant and submitted that the victim was carrying hi