JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the Award dated 22-1-94 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 12% per annum. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company is that the tractor, which met with the accident, was being used as a goods vehicle and the deceased was sitting on it as the labourer and in this view of the matter, as per Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent specified under the Workmen Compensation Act and the learned Judge of the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation excess of the amount which can be awarded as compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act and as such the judgment/award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal deserves to be set-aside. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the judgment/award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The same controversy came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra v. State of U.P. & Anr., 1995 (6) SCC 623 wherein the claimant, who was working as the Beldar, while pouring the water on the road-roller moving on the road, he met with an accident and on account of this accident, his right leg was amputated. He filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Itawa. The Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the Road-roller and awarded the total compensation of Rs. 1,45,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. An appeal was preferred before the High Court against the award passed by the Tribunal and the contention was raised before the High Court that the claimant was entitled to Rs. 85,000/- only as compensation if he would have moved the Workmen Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act and, therefore, the award of the amount in excess of Rs. 85,000/- deserves to be reduced. The High Court accepted the contention raised by the appellant and reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,45,000/- to Rs. 85,000/-. 85,000/- only as compensation if he would have moved the Workmen Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act and, therefore, the award of the amount in excess of Rs. 85,000/- deserves to be reduced. The High Court accepted the contention raised by the appellant and reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,45,000/- to Rs. 85,000/-. The claimants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set-aside the judgment passed by the High Court and held that the High Court was not right in accepting the reasoning of the non-claimants relating to the limit of grant of the compensation to the extent prescribed under the Workmen Compensation Act. The judgment passed by the High Court reducing the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs. 85,000/- only was, therefore, set aside and the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarding to compensation amounting to Rs. 1,45,000/- was restored. 5. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Suresh Chandra's case (supra), the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in awarding the compensation to the extent of Rs. 90,000/-. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is, therefore, devoid of any force. 6. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal rejected. *******