JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals arise out of the same Impugned award, namely award dated 8.10.2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short) whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded different compensation to the different claimants. Since all these appeals arise out of the same impugned award and since the same legal issue has been raised, these appeals are being decided by a common judgment. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that in the morning of 22.5.1999, a group of villagers started from their village in order to attend the Tonsuring Ceremony of Devi Lal Gurjar's son. Near Chainpura Bheruji, the villagers were met by one Amrit Lai, who was driving a tractor, Amrit Lal asked the villagers as to where they were going and offered them a lift on his tractor. Therefore, the villagers boarded the tractor. However, around 9.45 A.M. on the Sarola Taraj Road, despite the protest of the passengers, Amrit Lal drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently, the tractor over-turned, killing three persons on the spot and injuring others. The dependents of the deceased persons as well as the Injured persons filed separate claim petitions before the learned Tribunal. The said claim petitions were consolidated and were decided by the Impugned award. During the course of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, the owner and the driver of the tractor denied the occurrence; the Insurance Company, the appellant before us, argued that the tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and not for the purpose of carrying passengers. Since the tractor was carrying gratuitous passengers, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. However, vide impugned award, the learned Tribunal held the Insurance Company liable for paying the compensation to the respective claimants. Hence, these appeals before this Court. 3. The only issue that arises for our consideration in all these appeals is whether the Insurance Company is liable for the payment of the compensation for death or injury to gratuitous passengers who are travelling on a tractor, which was insured only for agricultural purpose, or not? This issue is no longer res Integra as the issue has been long settled by catena of cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court. This issue is no longer res Integra as the issue has been long settled by catena of cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court. The learned Tribunal had relied upon the case of New India Insurance Company v. Satpal Singh, 2000 WLC (SC) Civil 40 : 2000 (1) SCC 91 . However, the said judgment was emphatically overruled in the case of New India Insurance Company v. Asha Rani, JT 2002 (10) SC . Ever since the case of Asha Rani (supra) in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and others, 2003 ACJ 1931 and in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others, 2004 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 240 : 2004 ACJ 428 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation to gratuitous passengers. Dealing with the case of tractor where gratuitous passengers were travelling, in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chinnamma and others, JT 2004 (7) SC 167 , the Apex Court reiterated the same principle. Even this Court has echoed the same principle in the case of National Insurance Company v. Om Prakash and others, 2005 (8) RDD 3042 (Raj.) . Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Therefore, to the limited extent whereby the liability of payment of compensation has been imposed on the Insurance Company vide award dated 8.10.2002, the award is modified. In case any amount has already been paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants, the Company shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The claimants are entitled to receive the compensation amount from the owner and the driver of the tractor.In result, these appeals are allowed as indicated above.Appeal Allowed - Amount Paid by insurer can be recovered. *******