Judgment S.K.Gangele, J. ( 1. ) These three appeals have filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common award dated 15th September, 2006 in Claim Cases No. 139/2006 and No. 140/2006 and 141/2006, passed by the President, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena. All the three appeals have been arisen out of the common award, hence, the appeals have been taken together and heard together finally. The question of challenge the award in the aforesaid appeal is with regard to liability of the Insurance Company for payment of compensation. ( 2. ) On 18th October, 2001, at around 12.15 in the noon, claimants and deceased Ramkaran had been going in a tractor trolley, bearing registration No. C.P.C. -9787. The tractor was being used for transporting bricks from bricks-kiln. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, a standing date tree (Khajoor tree) fell over the tractor. In the aforesaid accident, one person, namely, Ramkaran was died and other labourers received serious injuries. Report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station Banmore and vide crime No. 205/01, an offence under Section 279, 337, 204-A of IPC has been registered Charge-sheet was filed before the J.M.F.C., Morena. ( 3. ) The dependents of deceased Ramkaran filed in claim application No. 139/06 before the Claims Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs. 20,10,000/-. Other two labourers, namely, Devi Singh and Raju, who received injuries also filed claim applications No. 140/06 and 141/06 respectively. ( 4. ) Learned Claims Tribunal after appreciation of evidence has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The tractor was insured by the Insurance Company. Hence, the driver, owner and Insurance Company are liable for payment of compensation. ( 5. ) Shri B.N. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Insurance company is not at all liable for payment of compensation because the tractor was insured for agriculture purpose and it was used for commercial purpose in which the deceased and claimants had been travelling. Hence, there is a violation of insurance policy. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the followingjudgments:- (i) (Mithlesh and others v. Brijendra Singh Baghel and others) 2007 ACJ 10 = 2007 (2) TAC 545, (ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Hence, there is a violation of insurance policy. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the followingjudgments:- (i) (Mithlesh and others v. Brijendra Singh Baghel and others) 2007 ACJ 10 = 2007 (2) TAC 545, (ii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and others 2007 (1) An.W.R. 733 (SC) = 2007 (4) SCJ 459 = 2007 ACJ 1909 = 2007 (3) TAC 20. (iii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Serjerao and others 2008 (1) An.W.R. 463 (SC) = 2007 (8) SCJ 612 = 2008 ACJ 254 : 2008 (1) TAC 6. (iv) Bhav Singh v. Savirani and others 2008 ACJ 1043 . (v) General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Laxmi and others 2009 (1) An.W.R. 570 (SC) = 2009 (3) SCJ 89 = 2009 ACJ 104 . ( 6. ) Contrary to this, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents and deceased were the workers of the owner. They received injuries during the course of the employment. Hence, they are the third party and they are entitled for payment of compensation. Learned Counsel further submitted that the tractor was used for agriculture purpose. Learned Counsel further submitted that the claimants are also entitled for enhancement of compensation looking to the nature of injuries and dependency of the dependents and the cross- objections filed by the claimants be also allowed. In support of her contentions, learned Counsel relied on the following judgments: (i) 2008 ACJ 1043 M.P.H.C.; (ii) 2008 ACJ 2206 M.P.H.C; (iii) 2005 ACJ 1323 S.C.; (iv) 2008 ACJ 2656 M.P.H.C.; (v) 2008 (2) M.A.C.D. 659 M.P.H.C; (vi) 2006 ACJ 1217 M.P.H.C.; (vii) 1996 ACJ 711 M.P.H.C. (viii) 1996 ACJ 398 M.P.H.C; (ix) 2006 ACJ 398 M.P.H.C.; (x) 2007 ACJ 944 M.P.H.C.; (xi) M.A. 249/01 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekhabhai); (xii) M.A.No. 333/03 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Triveni); (xiii) M.A. No. 890/03 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Puranmal); (xiv) M.A. No. 773/04 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Geetabai); and (xv) 2009 (l)TAC 95 M.P.H.C. (S.B.). ( 7. ) It is an admitted fact that the claimants and deceased suffered injuries. They had been travelling in a trolley, attached to the tractor, bearing registration No. C.P.G.-9787. Ltd. v. Puranmal); (xiv) M.A. No. 773/04 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Geetabai); and (xv) 2009 (l)TAC 95 M.P.H.C. (S.B.). ( 7. ) It is an admitted fact that the claimants and deceased suffered injuries. They had been travelling in a trolley, attached to the tractor, bearing registration No. C.P.G.-9787. It is said that when the claimants had been going from bricks-kiln to another place to unload the bricks, a date tree (Khajoor) fell down over the tractor and the claimants and the deceased received injuries. Report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station. Copy of the report has been filed as Ext. P/15. The same version has been mentioned in the report. The claimant Devi Singh in his evidence stated that he had been working in a bricks-kiln of Ashok. He alongwith Ramkaran and Raju had been going at Banmor after loading bricks over a tractor bearing registration No. C.P.G. -9787. They were sitting over the mudguard of the tractor. When they reached at Saxena Ke Pura, near Gwalior-Morena Road, a date tree (Khajoor tree) fell down over the tractor. In the aforesaid accident, he received serious injuries. The same fact has been mentioned in his evidence by Soneram, who is father of the deceased Ramkaran, who was died in the accident. The same fact has also been stated by Raju. ( 8. ) On behalf of the Insurance Company. Mr. Arun Parashar in his deposition stated that the tractor was insured from 3rd Jul, 2001 to 2nd July, 2002 for agriculture purpose and as per the policy only the risk of the driver was covered copy of the insurance policy has been filed as Ext. D/1. It is clear from the policy and the statement that the tractor was insured for agriculture purpose and only the risk of the driver of the tractor was covered. It is also clear from the evidence of the claimants themselves that the claimants and deceased had been travelling over the mudguard of the tractor when the accident occurred and they had been carrying bricks of the owner from brick factory (Int Bhatta). It is clear from the aforesaid evidence that the tractor was used for commercial purpose not for agriculture purpose for which the tractor has been insured by the Insurance Company. ( 9. It is clear from the aforesaid evidence that the tractor was used for commercial purpose not for agriculture purpose for which the tractor has been insured by the Insurance Company. ( 9. ) Honble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Brij Mohan and others (supra) has held as under: "8. The Tribunal in its award has, inter alia, noticed that appellant herein had raised a specific defence, namely, the trolley was not insured. It does not appear that the said contention of the appellant had been gone into. There is nothing on record to show that the owner of the tractor had produced any insurance cover in respect of the trolley. It is furthermore not disputed that the tractor was insured only for the purpose of carrying out agricultural works. The representative of Insurance Company Hari Singh Meena on cross-examination merely accepted the suggestion that cutting the earth and leveling the field with earth would be an agricultural work but respondent No.1 himself categorically stated that the earth had been dug and was being carried in the trolley to the brick-kiln. Evidently the earth was meant to be used only for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. Digging of earth for the purpose of manufacture of brick-kiln indisputably cannot amount to carrying out the agricultural work." 9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinnamma, 2004 ACJ. 1909 = 2004 (3) TAC 577 (SC), this Court held: "(13) An insurance for an owner of the goods or his authorized representative traveling in a vehicle became compulsory only with effect from 14th November, 1994, i.e., from the date of coming into force of the Amending Act 54 of 1994. (14) Furthermore, a tractor is not even a goods carriage. The goods carriage has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods whereas tractor has been defined in Section 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller. The trailer has been defined in Section 2 (46) to mean any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. The trailer has been defined in Section 2 (46) to mean any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. (Emphasis supplied) (15) 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 agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mr.K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to the market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. Tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be 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 this Court in Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 : 2003 (1) TAC 1 (SC) and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24th November, 1991, i.e, much prior to coming into force of 1994 amendment. 10. Furthermore, respondent was not the owner of the tractor. He was also not the driver thereof. He was merely a passenger travelling on the trolley attached to the tractor. His claim petition, therefore, could not have been allowing in view of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 = 2003 (1) TAC 1 (SC), wherein, the earlier decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 = 2000 (1) TAC 403 (SC) was overruled." ( 10. ) Honble Supreme Court further held in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 = 2003 (1) TAC 1 (SC), wherein, the earlier decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 = 2000 (1) TAC 403 (SC) was overruled." ( 10. ) Honble Supreme Court further held in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sejerao and others, (supra), with regard to liability of the persons travelling in a trolley has held as under: "8. So far as the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trollies is concerned, the matter was considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and others 2007 ACJ 1909 (SC) and it was held that the Insurance Company has no liability. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, we set aside the impugned order in each case and remit the matters to the High Court to consider the matters afresh in the light of what has been stated by this Court in "Yallawwas case, 2007 ACJ 1934 : 2007 (3) TAC 1 (SC) and Brij Mohans case, 2007 ACJ 1909 : 2007 (2) TAC 545 (SC)." ( 11. ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mithlesh and others v. Brijendra Singh Baghel and others (supra) has held as under: "7. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence on record, it is clear that the tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and at the relevant time the same was not being used for agricultural purposes. It is not the case of the appellants that the owner or his representative was travelling on the vehicle alongwith the goods. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any compensation as the liability of the deceased is not covered under the policy and more so it is not covered under the policy and more so it is not the case of third party risk as the deceased was not third party." ( 12. ) Looking to the above principle of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in my opinion, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation and the award of the Tribunal to this effect is contrary to law. ( 13. ) Looking to the above principle of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in my opinion, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation and the award of the Tribunal to this effect is contrary to law. ( 13. ) The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents relying on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Bhav Singh v. Savirani and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 1043 , that the deceased and claimants are third party could not be accepted because there is no evidence on record to conclusively held that the deceased or the claimants were on paroll of the owner. Apart from this, the controversy in this case has been covered by the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court as stated above. ( 14. ) Learned Counsel for the respondents- claimants has cited number of judgments, however, it is not necessary to consider all the judgments. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. R.L. Vaid and others, reported in A.I.R. 2004 SC 4269, where the Honble Supreme Court has held as under with regard to applicability of the law laid down by the law Courts. The relevant portion is as under: "5. We find that the High Court has merely referred to the decision in R.K. Jains case (supra) without even indicating as to applicability of the said decision and as to how it has any relevance to the facts of the case. It would have been proper for the High Court to indicate the reasons and also to spell out clearly as to applicability of the decision to the facts of the case. There is always peril in treating the words of a judgment as though they are words in a Legislative enactment and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by merely placing reliance on a decision is not proper. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut out the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and braches, said Lord Denning, while speaking in the matter of applying precedents. Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut out the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and braches, said Lord Denning, while speaking in the matter of applying precedents. The impugned order is certainly vague." ( 15. ) With regard to maintainability of the counter-claim filed by the claimants in my opinion, this Court has already held that the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. In that circumstances, the counter-claim against the co-respondents i.e. owner and driver in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company is not maintainable in view of the judgment passed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Panna Lal v. State of Bombay and others, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1516 , where the Honble Supreme Court has held as under with regard to maintainability of the counter-claim against the co-respondents:- "Order XLI, Rule 22 permits, as a general rule, a respondent to prefer an objection directed only against the appellant and it is only in exceptional cases, such as where the relief sought against the appellant in such an objection is intermixed with the relief granted to the other respondents so that the relief against the appellant cannot be granted without the question being re-opened between the objecting respondent and other respondents, that an objection under Order XLI, Rule 22 can be directed against the other respondents. The use of the word "cross-objection" in Order XLI, Rule 22 expresses unmistakably the intention of the Legislature that the objection has to be directed against the appellant. That the Legislature also wanted to give effect to the view that in exceptional cases an objection can be preferred by a respondent against a co-respondent is indicated by the substitution of the word "appellant" in the third paragraph by the words the party who may be affected by such objection". AIR 1959 Bom. 56 Reversed; ILR 7 mad 215, Overruled, Air 1950 Mad 379 (FB), Approved; AIR 1939 PC 86, Distinguished." ( 16. ) The aforesaid judgment has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shazadi Begum. Vinod Kumar and another, reported AIR 1978 MP 20 . ( 17. AIR 1959 Bom. 56 Reversed; ILR 7 mad 215, Overruled, Air 1950 Mad 379 (FB), Approved; AIR 1939 PC 86, Distinguished." ( 16. ) The aforesaid judgment has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shazadi Begum. Vinod Kumar and another, reported AIR 1978 MP 20 . ( 17. ) Consequently, all the three appeals i.e., M.A.No.1181/06,M.A.No.1182/06 and M.A.No. 1183/06, filed by the appellant- Insurance Company are hereby allowed. It is hereby held that the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. If any compensation is paid, the appellant is free to recover the same. The impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated above. However, it is clarified that the claimants can execute the award against the other non-applicants as per their liability fixedby the Tribunal. The counter-claims filed by the claimants in each case are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.