ORDER : - Mr. C. P. Singh, counsel for appellant. Mr. Manish Jain, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Heard on I. A. No. 8282/2006 which is application for condonation of delay. Delay is of 2 days. Sufficient ground is made out in the application for condonation of delay, hence application is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. Being aggrieved by the award dated 15-12-2006 passed by AMACT, Kukshi in Claim Case No. 89/2005 whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed and in a death case, a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- has been awarded, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Short facts of the case are that claimants who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed a claim petition before the learned tribunal alleging that on 9-4-2005 deceased Jamsingh, son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 aged 12 years was working as labourer in the field of Jagdish. It was alleged that offending tractor bearing Registration No. MP46 M 0857 which was driven by respondent No. 3, owned by respondent No. 4 and insured with the appellant was being used in the field of Jagdish for cultivating the land. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3, Jamsingh fell down from the tractor and was crushed under the wheels of offending tractor, with the result Jamsingh died. It was alleged that deceased was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. It was prayed that claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be allowed and compensation be awarded. 5. The claim petition was contested by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by filing the written statement wherein it was denied that there was any negligence on the part of respondent No. 3. In alternate, it was prayed that if it is found that accident occurred on account of negligence on the part of respondent No. 3, then too since the offending vehicle was insured, therefore appellant be held liable for payment of compensation. 6. Appellant has filed separate written statement wherein liability of the appellant is denied. It is also denied that deceased Jamsingh was working as labourer. It was alleged that since the offending tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and no passenger was allowed to travel, therefore appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. 7. 6. Appellant has filed separate written statement wherein liability of the appellant is denied. It is also denied that deceased Jamsingh was working as labourer. It was alleged that since the offending tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and no passenger was allowed to travel, therefore appellant-Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. 7. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- against which the present appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for appellant argued at length and submits that learned tribunal committed error in holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedwati, I (2007) ACC 924 (SC) wherein it was held that - "the inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that provisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriage and the insurer would have no liability therefor." 9. Reliance was also placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prema Devi, 2008 ACJ 1149 wherein in a case the claimant was travelling in a goods vehicle as gratuitous passenger and claimant was not travelling as owner of goods or representative of owner of goods being transported in the vehicle, it was held that Insurance Company is not liable and claimant may recover the compensation amount from owner of vehicle. 10. Learned counsel for appellant submits that in view of aforesaid position of law, the appeal deserves to be allowed and findings regarding liability of the appellant regarding payment of compensation deserves to be set aside. 11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that upon the specific plea raised by the appellant, an issue was framed by the learned tribunal to the effect "whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger?". Since no evidence was led by the appellant-Insurance Company, therefore the issue was decided in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that awarded amount has already been deposited by the appellant which has already been withdrawn by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Since no evidence was led by the appellant-Insurance Company, therefore the issue was decided in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that awarded amount has already been deposited by the appellant which has already been withdrawn by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed and be dismissed. 12. From perusal of record, it is evident that accident took place at the time when the offending tractor was working in the field of Jagdish. Jagdish was neither owner nor driver of the offending tractor. Jagdish was not examined by any of the parties. The deceased was minor aged 12 years. At the relevant time, the tractor was not attached with the trolley as it was not working in the field. It is not explained why the deceased was sitting in the tractor. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not come in witness box to explain the reason of presence of deceased on the tractor. 13. Since amount awarded by the learned tribunal has already been paid by the appellant to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, it is not relevant at this stage to decide whether the appellant-Insurance Company was entitled for exoneration or not. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vedwati, this Court is of the view that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were liable for payment of compensation. Since the amount awarded has already been paid by the appellant, therefore appellant shall have an option to recover the same from respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 14. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Order accordingly.