S.K.Gangele, J.

( 1. ) These three appeals have filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award dated 15th September, 2006 in Claim Cases No. 139/2006 and No. 140/2006 and 141/2006, passed by the President, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena. All the three appeals have been arisen out of the common award, hence, the appeals have been taken together and heard together finally. The question of challenge the award in the aforesaid appeal is with regard to liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation.

( 2. ) On 18th October, 2001, at around 12.15 in the noon, claimants and deceased Ramkaran had been going in a tractor trolley, bearing registration No. C.P.C. -9787. The tractor was being used for transporting bricks from bricks-kiln. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, a standing date tree (Khajoor tree) fell over the tractor. In the aforesaid accident, one person, namely, Ramkaran was died and other labourers received serious injuries. Report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station Banmore and vide crime No. 205/01, an offence under Section 279, 337, 204-A of IPC has been registered Charge-sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C., Morena.

( 3. ) The dependents of deceased Ramkaran filed in claim application No. 139/06 before the Claims Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 20,10,000/-. Other two labourers, namely, Devi Singh and Raju, who received injuries also filed claim applications No. 140/06 and 141/06 respectively.

( 4. ) Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The tractor was insured by the Insurance Company. Hence, the driver, owner and Insurance Company are liable for payment of compensation.

( 5. ) Shri B.N. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Insurance company is not at all liable for payment of compensation because the tractor was insured for agriculture purpose and it was used for commercial purpose in which the deceased and claimants had been travelling. Hence, there is a violation of insurance policy. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the followingjudgments:-

(i) (Mithlesh and others v. Brijendra Singh Baghel and others) 2007 ACJ 10 = 2007 (2) TAC 545, (ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and others 2007 (1) An.W.R. 733 (SC) = 2007 (4) SCJ 459 = 2007 ACJ 1909 = 2007 (3) TAC 20. (iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Serjerao and others 2008 (1) An.W.R. 463 (SC) = 2007 (8) SCJ 612 = 2008 ACJ 254: 2008 (1) TAC 6. (iv) Bhav Singh v. Savirani and others 2008 ACJ 1043. (v) General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Laxmi and others 2009 (1) An.W.R. 570 (SC) = 2009 (3) SCJ 89 = 2009 ACJ 104.

( 6. ) Contrary to this, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents and deceased were the workers of the owner. They received injuries during the course of the employment. Hence, they are the third party and they are entitled for payment of compensation. Learned Counsel further submitted that the tractor was used for agriculture purpose. Learned Counsel further submitted that the claimants are also entitled for enhancement of compensation looking to the nature of injuries and dependency of the dependents and the cross- objections filed by the claimants be also allowed. In support of her contentions, learned Counsel relied on the following judgments:

(i) 2008 ACJ 1043 M.P.H.C.; (ii) 2008 ACJ 2206 M.P.H.C; (iii) 2005 ACJ 1323 S.C.; (iv) 2008 ACJ 2656 M.P.H.C.; (v) 2008 (2) M.A.C.D. 659 M.P.H.C; (vi) 2006 ACJ 1217 M.P.H.C.; (vii) 1996 ACJ 711 M.P.H.C. (viii) 1996 ACJ 398 M.P.H.C; (ix) 2006 ACJ 398 M.P.H.C.; (x) 2007 ACJ 944 M.P.H.C.; (xi) M.A. 249/01 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekhabhai); (xii) M.A.No. 333/03 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Triveni); (xiii) M.A. No. 890/03 (Na