Judgment ( 1. ) - Being aggrieved by the award dated 3. 10. 2005 passed by Additional Member, M. A. C. T. , Ujjain in Claim case No. 26 of 2005, whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for compensation on account of death of their son Radheshyam was allowed and compensation of Rs. 2,70,500 was awarded, present appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) SHORT fads of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a claim petition alleging that on 22. 9. 2003 at about 12 a. m. deceased Radheshyam was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. MP 13-KC 4401, which was owned and driven by respondent No. 3 and insured with appellant. It was alleged that at the time when the offending tractor was crossing the Shipra river, because of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 and the flood in the river, Radheshyam died due to asphyxia. It was alleged that claim petition was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be allowed and compensation be awarded. The claim petition was contested by the appellant on various grounds including on the ground that the offending vehicle was goods vehicle and the deceased was travelling on the mudguard of the offending tractor. It was alleged that since the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes and carrying of passengers was not covered under the policy, therefore, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition holding the appellant liable for payment of compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 2,70,500, against which the present appeal has been filed. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed error in holding appellant liable for payment of compensation. It is further submitted that since the offending vehicle was a tractor and was insured for agricultural purposes, therefore, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation, specially in a case where the deceased was travelling on the mudguard. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal committed error in holding appellant liable for payment of compensation. It is further submitted that since the offending vehicle was a tractor and was insured for agricultural purposes, therefore, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation, specially in a case where the deceased was travelling on the mudguard. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of this court in the matter of Phool Singh v. Pankhi, 2004 ACJ 843 (MP), wherein the trolley tilted and a passenger fell into the ditch resulting in his death, a Division bench of this court has held that "there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation". Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chin-namma, 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC), wherein in a case where death of a passenger travelling in tractor-trailer along with his bags of vegetables when he fell down, Apex Court held that "vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes, therefore, the insurance company is not liable". Reliance was also placed on a decision of Apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC), wherein the Honble Apex Court in a matter where a gratuitous passenger travelling in truck held that the "insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation". Lastly, reliance was placed in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati, 2007 ACJ 1043 (SC), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has 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 thereof". ( 4. ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed and the direction of payment of compensation against the appellant deserves to be quashed. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 argued at length and submits that learned Tribunal rightly held the appellant liable for payment of compensation. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 argued at length and submits that learned Tribunal rightly held the appellant liable for payment of compensation. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshana Devi, 2008 ACJ 1388 (SC), wherein in a case where driver was having no licence, the Honble Supreme court has held that although the owner had contravened the contract of insurance, the insurance company cannot escape its liability in regard to third party risk but was entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the insured, namely, the owner of the offending vehicle. ( 6. ) FACING to this situation counsel for the appellant submits that the decision in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshana Devi, 2008 ACJ 1388 (SC), the powers conferred by Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised by Honble apex Court and not by this court. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anubai gopichand Thakare, 2008 ACJ 213 (Bombay), wherein the Bombay High Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan, 2007 acj 1909 (SC), whereby the Honble apex Court held that the insurer was not liable to pay compensation in respect of passenger who was travelling in tractor, however, directed that in a situation of this nature, in exercise of powers conferred by article 142 read with Article 136 of the constitution of India, the Apex Court can direct the insurance company to pay compensation for doing complete justice to the parties was taken into consideration and was observed that the directions given in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by the Apex Court cannot be construed as ratio laid down in this behalf. It is well settled that the subordinate courts and the tribunal cannot exercise such extraordinary power. ( 7. ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid decision, since the deceased was travelling on mudguard of the tractor, in the opinion of this court the learned Tribunal committed error in directing the appellant to pay the awarded amount. ( 8. ) IN view of this, the appeal is allowed in part. ( 7. ) KEEPING in view the aforesaid decision, since the deceased was travelling on mudguard of the tractor, in the opinion of this court the learned Tribunal committed error in directing the appellant to pay the awarded amount. ( 8. ) IN view of this, the appeal is allowed in part. The direction whereby the appellant was held liable for payment of compensation stands set aside. However, it is made clear that any amount which has already been paid by the appellant shall not be recovered from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the same shall be recoverable only from respondent No. 3. ( 9. ) WITH the aforesaid directions this appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.