time, he fell down and died. Therefore, the available evidence shows that the deceased died while ploughing the vehicle and he was assisted in the tractor for the agricultural work. On careful perusal of the above judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant, they will not be applicable to the present facts of the case, because in this case, the tractor was not plied in the road and the same was utilized for the purpose of agricultural work. At that time, the deceased was engaged as assistant and thereby, the accident was happened. Therefore the facts of the case are distinguishable from the above said citations. The insurance also covered for the cleaner and for agricultural work some assistance is needed and thereby, the policy also covered for the cleaner. Since the term 'Cleaner' has not been defined, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The owner of the vehicle also permitted the deceased, who was aged about 14 years for assistance and thereby, they also liable to pay compensation. However, the second respondent can satisfy the award amount to the petitioners and then they can recover the same under the doctrine of pay and recover. Therefore, as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the deceased was travelled as assistant in the tractor, while ploughing the agricultural land and the policy also covered for the cleaner.
