JUDGMENT 1. - These four revisions arise out of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banswara, on 26.11.1992. Since they arise out of the same accident they are being disposed of by the common order. 2. The accident had taken place on 5.2.1979. Dalla, Kalu, Dev Chand and Jeengara were travelling in the tractor No. RJB 7684. In the accident, Jeengara lost his life and the three persons sustained injuries. The claim petitions were filed by three injured and the legal representatives of Jeengara. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed an award, however, the liability of the insurance company was held to be limited. The owners of vehicle have, therefore, preferred these revision petitions. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case and the ruling cited. 4. The contention of Mr. B.N. Kalla appearing for the petitioners is that the deceased and the injured were not in the employment of the owner of the vehicle and as such the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was not applicable and they being the third party the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. As against this the contention of the learned Counsel for insurance company is that the injured and the deceased were travelling in the tractor which was a goods vehicle and that they were in the employment of the insured, therefore, the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent of the liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the liability of the insurance company is limited. 5. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners that the revision against the impugned award does not lie. 6. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. Coming to the maintainability of the revision, it may be stated that the appeal did not lie against the award of the Claims Tribunal under Section 110-D of the Act as the amount in dispute was less than Rs. 2,000/-. The Claims Tribunal is a civil court and this Court has got jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to entertain the revision petitions against the orders of the Claims Tribunal [See Division Bench judgment in Darshan Singh v. Ghewarchand 1993 ACJ 534 (Rajasthan) ]. 2,000/-. The Claims Tribunal is a civil court and this Court has got jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to entertain the revision petitions against the orders of the Claims Tribunal [See Division Bench judgment in Darshan Singh v. Ghewarchand 1993 ACJ 534 (Rajasthan) ]. It is, thus, clear that the revisions are maintainable. 7. The sole point for consideration is as to what was the capacity of the injured and the deceased, why they travelled in the tractor at the time of accident. It was nowhere the case of the insurance company in the written statement that the injured and the deceased were in the employment of the owner of the vehicle. Simply because the injured and the deceased were labourers and they were going in the tractor to do labour work it cannot be accepted that they had suffered injury during the employment of the insured. Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 95 comes into play only where it is found that persons who suffered bodily injuries were in the employment of the insured. It may also be stated that this is not the case of the insurance company that the injured or the deceased were engaged in the driving of the vehicle or that it was a public service vehicle. The tractor also cannot be said to be the goods vehicle. This court in the case of Rajendra Kumar v. Suman Lata Chaturvedi 1993 ACJ 1185 (Rajasthan ), has held that the tractor cannot be put in the category of goods vehicle. It is also interesting to note that even in the written statement the insurance company had not taken the plea that the tractor was a goods vehicle. That being so, the injured or the deceased could not be said to be the persons travelling in the course of employment of the insured and the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent it arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 8. The injured and the deceased can only be placed in the category of third party. This court in the case of Sajid Mian v. Ganga 1990 ACJ 54 (Rajasthan) , held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. It is relevant to state that that was the case where the injured and the deceased were travelling in the trolley. This court in the case of Sajid Mian v. Ganga 1990 ACJ 54 (Rajasthan) , held that the liability of the insurance company was unlimited. It is relevant to state that that was the case where the injured and the deceased were travelling in the trolley. Thus, the occupants of the tractor, who were not in the employment of the insured, cannot be placed in any category other than the category of third party. 9. The liability to pay compensation has been given in Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. The tractor was not a goods vehicle and it was also not a vehicle in which passengers were carried for hire. The case of the petitioners, therefore, falls in Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. The tractor will come in the category of vehicle of any other class. In Clause (c) it is clearly laid down that the insurance company shall be liable for the full amount of compensation. That being so, the learned Tribunal has clearly erred in accepting the defence of the insurance company that its liability was limited. 10. The result is that all the four revision petitions are allowed. The awards in question are modified to the limited extent. It is directed that the insurance company shall be liable to pay the entire amount of compensation payable to the claimants under the awards.Revision Petitions allowed. *******