S. S. JHA, A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. ( 2 ) CONTENTION of insurance company is that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to claimants, deceased vrindawan was travelling in a trailer of the tractor. On way, trailer of the tractor turned turtle. Vrindawan came under the trailer and was seriously injured. He was taken to the hospital. He remained admitted in the hospital from 12. 7. 1994 to 18. 7. 1994. He died on 18. 7. 1994 due to the grievous injuries. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the appellant insurance company submitted that from the facts narrated by the claimants itself, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Claimants themselves have admitted that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the trailer of the tractor. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. In support of his contention, he referred to the judgment of Apex court in the case of National Insurance co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC ). While considering the scope and the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), it has been held that the legislative intent is to prohibit the goods vehicles for carrying passenger. In para 14 it is held that a tractor is not even a goods carriage. 'trailer' has been defined in section 2 (46)of the Motor Vehicles Act to mean "any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle". A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of 'goods carriage' contained in section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for the agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of 'goods carriage' contained in section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for the agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. ( 5 ) IN the present case, even if it is assumed that the trailer would answer the description of 'goods carriage' as contained in section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles act, the case would be covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asha rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and other decisions following the same as the incident has taken place on 12. 7. 1994, i. e. , before coming into force of the 1994 amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act. It is, therefore, held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. In view of the aforesaid judgment, appeal of the insurance company deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. ( 6 ) WE have heard counsel for claimants on the cross-objection for enhancement of the compensation. Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding in para 10 of the judgment regarding income of the deceased. Considering the evidence, Claims Tribunal has recorded that the deceased was a skilled worker. He was a mason and was earning rs. 70 per day. Claims Tribunal considered the evidence that as mason the deceased was earning Rs. 70 per day, but has held that the mason does not get work regularly throughout the year and is not able to get work during rainy season. Therefore, the claims Tribunal has determined the average income of the deceased at Rs. 1,200 per month and determined the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 800 per month. Claimants themselves have mentioned that at the time of death, deceased was aged about 52 years. The Claims Tribunal has, therefore, rightly applied the multiplier of 11 and awarded the compensation. Apart from the compensation of Rs. 1,05,600 a further sum of Rs. 10,000 has been awarded and total sum of Rs. 1,15,600 has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. ( 7 ) IN our opinion, Claims Tribunal has passed a reasoned award and quantum of compensation does not warrant interference. Even from claimants' documents-post-mortem report, Exh. P12, and M. L. C. report, Exh. 1,05,600 a further sum of Rs. 10,000 has been awarded and total sum of Rs. 1,15,600 has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. ( 7 ) IN our opinion, Claims Tribunal has passed a reasoned award and quantum of compensation does not warrant interference. Even from claimants' documents-post-mortem report, Exh. P12, and M. L. C. report, Exh. P9, age of the deceased is mentioned as 60 years. Thus, if we accept this age, then multiplier will be reduced and even if some change in the income of the deceased is considered, then also quantum of compensation will remain near about the same or may be less than the amount awarded by Claims Tribunal. Since there is no challenge to the quantum of compensation by the insurance company, owner and driver, we refrain from interfering with the quantum of compensation. ( 8 ) IN the result, appeal succeeds and is allowed and the cross-objection fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Insurance company is free to recover the amount deposited by it from the owner of the vehicle. Appeal allowed. .