JUDGMENT 1. -This misc. appeal has been filed by the non-claimant appellants against the award dated 7.1.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa in Claim Case No. 92/94 whereby an award has been passed in favour of the claimant respondents because of the death of one Peeru. The claim applications were filed by widow and sons of the deceased. 2. The accident had occurred on 1.3.1994 when the deceased was travelling in tractor No. RJ-05-R-475 which was being driven by respondent No. 6. The tractor was comprehensively insured with the respondent No. 7. 3. The Insurance Company had appeared before the Tribunal, but had denied its liability. No evidence oral or otherwise was produced by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal had held the present appellant liable and respondent No. 6 Banwari Lal to pay compensation jointly and severally and exonerated the Insurance Company when the contention of respondent Insurance Company was accepted to the effect that the tractor could only be used for agricultural purposes and, therefore, the deceased who was sitting in the trolly was not entitled to compensation as the insured had violated the conditions of insurance. The trolly was full with Bajri and had over turned while striking a motor cycle causing death of the deceased. 4. Both the parties have relied on the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors., (2000) 1 SCC 237 a plea was taken by the Insurance Company to the effect that it was not liable to compensate the death of gratuitous passenger in the vehicle. The Apex Court had held that under the new Act an insurance policy covering third-party risk is not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type of class. Hence, the decision of rendered under the old Act vis-a-vis gratuitous passengers are of no avail while considering the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of any accident which occurred or would occur after the new Act came into force. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Apex Court had made out very clear that the passengers in the vehicle are compensated as if they were third party, no matter without distinction of class of the vehicle. 6. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the proposition as has been held by the Apex Court. 7. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Apex Court had made out very clear that the passengers in the vehicle are compensated as if they were third party, no matter without distinction of class of the vehicle. 6. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the proposition as has been held by the Apex Court. 7. In view of the authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 504/99 is allowed and the award is modified to the extent that the compensation shall be payable by all the respondents including the Insurance Company jointly and severally. 8. Counsel for the appellant states that he does not want to press the appeal and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. 9. The Misc. Appeal No. 781/99 is dismissed as withdrawn. 10. Consequently the Misc. Appeal No. 504/99 is allowed as aforesaid and the Misc. Appeal No. 781/99 is dismissed as withdrawn.Misc. Appeal 504/99 Allowed and Misc. Appeal 781/99 Dismissed. *******