IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT 1. Niyaj Mohammad Vs. Kalu Khan & Ors. (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1124/2006) 2. Deen Mohammad Vs. Kalu Khan & Ors. (S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1129/2006) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Date of Judgment: August 6, 2008 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. J.P. Gupta, for the appellants. Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, for respondents. BY THE COURT: Since both these appeals arise out of the same award, dated 3-1-2006, passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Additional District Judge Beawar District Ajmer] Ajmer, the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants Niyaj Mohammad and Deen Mohammad were real brothers who were working as labourers on a tractor-trolly, bearing registration No.RJ- 22-R-2032, owned by respondent No.2, Subhan Khan, and driven by respondent No.1, Kalu Khan. It is the case of the appellants that on 12-2-2002 while the appellants were travelling in the tractor-trolly carrying stones to the field of Alam, near village Chitar, the driver of the tractor drove the tractor in such a rash and negligent manner that the tractor overturned. Consequently, Niyaj Mohammad suffered fracture in his thigh bone, and sustained injuries on his waist and right leg. Deen Mohammad lost three teeth, and suffered eight injuries all over his body. Both of them filed separate claim petitions before the learned Tribunal. In order to prove their case, they examined themselves as witnesses and exhibited seventeen documents. The Insurance Company examined a single witness and exhibited eight documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,03,432/- to the appellant, Niyaj Mohammad, and Rs.82,380/- to the appellant, Deen Mohammad. Since both the appellants are aggrieved by the said award, they have filed two separate appeals before this Court. 3. Mr. J.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently argued that admittedly the tractor was insured for “agricultural purpose”. According to both the witnesses, the tractor- trolly was carrying stones for the purpose of constructing boundary- wall in a farm. Thus, the tractor was engaged for “agricultural purpose” at the time of accident. According to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the agricultural purpose for which the tractor was being used should be that of the owner, and not for any other person. It has erroneously held that since the stones were being carried to the field of one Alam, whose relationship with the tractor owner is unknown, therefore, the tractor was, in fact, being used for “non-agricultural purpose”. Therefore, it discharged the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation amount. Secondly, even if it were to be held that the tractor was being used for “non-agricultural purpose”, the breach of insurance policy is not so fundamental as to absolve the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan & Ors. [MACD 2007(1) 541] and New India Insurance Company (The) Vs. Darshana Devi & Ors. [ MACD 2008 (SC) 74]. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has contended that according to the testimony of Deen Mohammad stones were being carried for the use of Alam, who was paying Rs.300/- per trolly for transporting the stones. Thus, the tractor was not being used for “agricultural purpose”, but was being used for “non-agricultural purpose”. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in absolving the Insurance Company of its liability to pay the compensation. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, examined the material available on record and perused the impugned award. 6. The words “agricultural purpose” have not been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, the ordinary meaning of the words “agricultural purpose” would be a purpose co-related to agriculture i.e., tilling of land, sowing of seeds, irrigating the fields, protection of the fields by construction of walls or otherwise, harvesting the crops and transporting the crops. However, the said activities must be done for the benefit of the insured and the owner of the tractor and not for the benefit of a third party. In the present case, although the stones were being transported for construction of boundary wall, but they were being transported for benefit of one Alam, whose relationship with the petitioner is unknown. Therefore, the stones were not being transported for being utilized in a farm owned and possessed by the appellant. In fact, the stones were being transported for the benefit of third party. Moreover, the stones were being transported after charging consideration from Aalam for transportation of the stones. Therefore, the tractor was being used for earning money. Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that in fact, the tractor was being used for “non-agricultural purpose”. 7. In the case of Brij Mohan (supra) the tractor was not being used for “agricultural purpose”, but still the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the compensation should be paid by the insurer. However, the same can be recovered by the insurer from the insured. Similar view was also expressed in the case of Darshana Devi & Ors. (supra). 8. Therefore, on the basis of case law mentioned above, this Court has no hesitation in modifying the award dated 03.01.2006 and in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. However, the Insurance Company shall have the right to recover the said amount from the appellant. 9. With these observations, this appeal is disposed off. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn