1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 21.1.1986 of M.A.C.T. Dhar passed in Claim Case No. 17/84 whereby the claimant/respondents No.1 to 7 have been awarded a compensation of Rs. 42,000/- for the death of Khurpia, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 to 7 in a motor accident on 8.12.83 on the Manwar Singhana road, absolving the respondent No. 9 of the liability of payment of compensation and the appellant/owner of the vehicle was directed to make good the loss.

2. The brief history of the case is that deceased Khurpia was dealing with the whole sale business of seasonal fruits like Banana, etc. He used to purchase unripe bananas and on getting them ripe on furnace, used to sell them. On the date of accident, deceased Khurpia had purchased bananas in whole-sale from Non applicant No.2 (appellant here), the owner of the tractor and was carrying it to village Signhana in the tractor and trolly. He was also occupying one seat in the tractor & trolly as the owner or the goods. One Ballu was also travelling along with him in the tractor. The tractor was rashly and negligently driven by non-applicant No.1 (Res No.8 here). The tractor turned turtle. Deceased Khurpia fell down, sustained injuries, was taken to hospital and was declared dead. The matter was reported and criminal case was registered against the N.A. No.1 (respondent No.8 here).

3. It was further claimed that Khurpia was earning nearly Rs. 500/- P.M., he was aged 45 years and all these claimants who are the wife and children of the deceased were wholly dependant on the deceased and they had to suffer loss of consortium, mental agony and loss of love and affection, as such they claimed Rs. 1,22,000/- as compensation.

The tractor was insured with non-applicant No.3 (respondent No.9 here).

4. The claim case was resisted by non-applicants (appellant and respondent No.9 here). Firstly they denied the fact of rash and negligent driving including the income of Khurpia and the dependency of the claimants.

5. Respondent No. 9 Insurance Company further claimed that the tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and since it was being used for purpose other than agriculture and as such they arc not liable to make good the loss.

6. Learned tribunal after considering the evidence came to a conclusion that claimants i.e. respondents No.1 to 7 are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 42,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and by accepting the plea of Insurance Company, absolved it from responsibility. The owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the compensation. Hence this appeal by the owner of the vehicle.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant himself has sold the fruits which were being carried to a destination as contracted the purchaser of the agricultural goods was accompanying the goods in the tractor and, therefore, it should be deemed to be in agricultural use.

8. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent/Insurance Company has submitted that the tractor though insured for agricultural purpose was being used for commercial purpose as such they are not responsible for making good the loss. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 has also contributed to the submissions of appellant with a qualification that in any way the respondent claimants maybe directed to be paid by any of the non-applicants in the decision of the Court.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the vehicle was a tractor & trolly and insured as such since the use was for commercial purpose as such there was breach of condition.

10. As against it, the learned counsel for respondent Insurance Company has submitted that since the owner of the tractor himself was the producer of bananas, he had sold it in wholesale to the deceased and was taking the produce to a destination disclosed by the purchaser and in the presence and occupation of the purchaser, and, t