S.K.Gangele, J.

( 1. ) Appellant insurance company has filed this appeal against the award dated 28.7.2007 passed in Claim Case No. 73 of 2003 by First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena.

( 2. ) On 30.4.2001, the deceased Vishram along with other persons had been working at village Bilauwa on a thresher machine. The thresher machine was attached with a tractor bearing registration No. RJ 34-R 0514. The deceased Vishram was doing the work of threshing wheat. It is said that at one point of time the tractor was stopped and suddenly it was restarted and thereby the thresher also stopped and restarted. At that moment right leg of Vishram was crushed in the thresher machine and he received serious injuries in his right leg. He was immediately got admitted in District Hospital, Morena and subsequently at J.A. Hospital, Gwalior where he died on 7.5.2001. A report of the accident was lodged at the police station and an offence was also registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, the claimants-respondents filed a claim application before Claims Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs. 21,00,000. The Claims Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the driver. The tractor was being used at the relevant time for agricultural purpose and it was insured by the appellant insurance company. The owner, driver and insurance company are liable for payment of compensation. After assessing dependency income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 4,84,500 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

( 3. ) Appellant insurance company took permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 13.10.2003 to challenge the question of quantum and liability.

( 4. ) Learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the insurance company is not liable for the payment of compensation and the Claims Tribunal has assessed the dependency too much and awarded an unjust compensation. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (1) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. K.I. Bindu, 2006 ACJ 423 (SC); and (2) An unreported judgment of Division Bench of this court in Parvati v. Manjit Singh, M.A. No. 334 of 2001; decided on 10.8.2006 at Gwalior Bench.

( 5. ) Contrary to this, learned counsel for respondents-claimants has submitted that a just and proper compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal looking to the age of the deceased and number of dependency. The tractor was insured by appellant insurance company and it was being used at the relevant time for agricultural purpose, hence the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (1) State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur, 2003 ACJ 1800 (SC); (2) Damodar v. Rajendrasingh, 2005 ACJ 474 (MP); (3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kalpana, 2007 ACJ 825 (SC); (4) Mamta v. Ganesh, II (2007) ACC 379; (5) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajalakshmi, 2008 ACJ 1503 (Madras); and (6) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savthanji Khodaji Thakor, 2008 ACJ 2486 (Gujarat),

( 6. ) With regard to liability of the appellant insurance company, it is an admitted fact that the tractor was insured for agricultural purpose by the appellant insurance company. The tractor was being used for threshing process at the time when the accident occurred. The deceased Vishram had been working on the thresher machine which was attached to the tractor and due to sudden stoppage and restart of tractor and thresher leg of the deceased crushed in the thresher machine and he received serious injuries and subsequently he died in the hospital. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savthanji Khodaji Thakor, 2008 ACJ 2486 (Gujarat), has held as under: "(6) The accident in