Section 95(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 covers all other vehicles of any other class not covered by clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95.

S.C. Pandey, J.

1. This is an appeal against the award dated 4.10.1991 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Betul, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 11 of 1988 under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Claims Tribunal has awarded in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 an award of Rs. 30,800/- with interest from 13.6.1988 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. This award has been passed against the appellant, who is the owner and driver of the tractor-trolley registered as MKV 9785. The Claims Tribunal has declined to grant any amount against the respondent No. 5, the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant was owner and driver of tractor No. MKV 9785. The tractor and trolley was insured with the respondent No. 5. The insurance was for agricultural purposes. It is alleged that on 10.4.1988, the deceased Jhamla Bai and other labourers were going in the tractor-trolley towards the Tapti river for bringing sand for the purpose of constructing a well. The tractor-trolley was being driven rashly and negligently by the appellant. As a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant, the tractor-trolley turned turtle and Jhamla Bai, wife of respondent No. 1, Manthu, died on account of the accident. At the relevant time, Jhamla Bai was aged about 30 years and she used to earn Rs. 15/- per day. In view of the death of wife of respondent No. 1, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 claimed compensation worth Rs. 1,10,000 against the appellant and the respondent No. 5.

3. The appellant denied the claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in totality. It was his case that he was not rash and negligent. He also claims, by way of amendment, that the tractor-trolley was being taken to Tapti river for bringing sand for repairing the agricultural well which had sunk. In Other words, by way of amendment the appellant pleaded that the tractor-trolley was being used for agricultural purposes.

4. The case of the respondent No. 5 was that the tractor-trolley No. MKV 9785 was not used for agricultural purposes. It was used for bringing sand and for this reason the respondent No. 5 claimed that it should not be liable to compensate the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 along with the appellant. It was also claimed that the tractor was being driven by a person who was not holding a licence.

5. It is not disputed by the Counsel for the appellant that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the compensation amounting to Rs. 30,800/- in respect of death of Jhamla Bai. However, the only point that has been raised in this appeal by the Counsel for the appellant is that the respondent No. 5 is also jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In view of the policy (Exh. D-1), it was contended by the Counsel for the appellant that there is evidence on record that the tractor-trolley was being driven by the appellant and purpose for which the tractor-trolley was being driven was agriculture. The appellant, who was examined as witness, has said in para 1 of his evidence that he was going to Tapti river for bringing sand in order to repair his agricultural well. The evidence of Manthu, NAW 1, showed that his wife used to work as a labourer with the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had a field where he used to perform agricultural operation. This evidence of Manthu, AW 1, has not been challenged by the Counsel for the parties. It is true that NAW 1, the appellant, has said that for repairing of his well his brother had purchased cement from the shop of Takandas. The respondent No. 5 has also examined Murlidhar, son of Takandas, who has said in para 2 of his evidence that no cement was purchased from his shop by Balaji, brother of the appellant Chatur Rao. However, Murlidhar did not produce the bill book in the court of law and he was unable to say whether somebody else had purchased the cement in the name of the appellant. He admitted in his cross-e