ORDER S.K. Gangele, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, against the award dated 13-10-2008, passed by the Xth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gwalior, in Claim Case No. 33/2007. 2. On 15-2-2007, it is said that deceased Rambaran had been travelling in a tractor bearing Registration No. MP 07 HA-4654. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, it became turtle and the trolley attached to the tractor also turned down, in the aforesaid accident Rambaran received serious injuries and died on the spot. The report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station Bijauli, District Gwalior and an offence under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, vide Crime No. 665/05, was registered against the driver of the tractor. Thereafter, the claimants filed claim application before the Claims Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 18,30,000/- . 3. The claimants before the Claims Tribunal pleaded that on 15-2-2007, deceased had been returning to his village Bilhati from Morar on his bicycle and at village Hasanpura Public Road, he was dashed by a tractor bearing Registration No. MP 07 HA-4654. It has further been stated that due to the aforesaid accident the trolley attached to the tractor turned down over the deceased and deceased Rambaran died. 4. The Insurance Company in its written statement, filed before the Claims Tribunal, denied the nature of accident and stated that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, the tractor became turtle and the trolley attached to the tractor also turned down. The tractor was insured for agriculture purpose and it was used for commercial purpose, which was contrary to the Insurance Policy, hence, there is no question of liability of the Insurance Company. 5. The Claims Tribunal 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 at the relevant time but it was used for commercial purpose. The deceased was third party because the accident occurred when deceased was hit by the tractor. The Tribunal fixed the liability for payment of compensation on the Insurance Company and awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,35,900/- . 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error of law in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company. The Tribunal fixed the liability for payment of compensation on the Insurance Company and awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,35,900/- . 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has committed an error of law in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company. Because the accident occurred when the deceased was travelling in the trolley attached to the tractor, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. In support of his contentions, Learned Counsel relied on the following judgments:-- i) 2004 ACJ 2094, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others; ii) 2006 ACJ 636 , Jayraj and another vs. Kaluram and another; iii) 2007(3) TAC 20 (SC), Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan and others; iv) 2007(1) MPLJ 315 : 2007 ACJ 10 , Mithlesh and others vs. Brijendra Singh Baghel and others; (v) 2008 (1) TAC 6 (SC), United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Serjerao and others; and vi) 2008(2) MPLJ 8 : ILR (2008) M. P. 282, Arun Kumar Patel and anr. vs. Smt. Terasi Saket and ors.) 7. Contrary to this, Learned Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is as per law. The deceased was a third party. He was dashed by the aforesaid tractor when he was going on a bicycle. In support of their contentions, Learned Counsel submitted the following judgments: i) 2004 ACJ 721, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanjappan and others, ii) 2004 ACJ 1903 , Pramod Kumar Agrawal and another vs. Mushtari Begum and others, and iii) 2007 ACJ 1928 , Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla and others. 8. Before the Claims Tribunal in support of the case, the wife of the deceased Savita examined herself. She stated that on 15-2-2007, her husband had been coming from Morar on a bicycle to house and he was dashed by a tractor. Another witness Kailash in his evidence stated that the deceased had been going from Morar to his house on a bicycle and he was dashed by the tractor from rear side . Kalyan Singh, who lodged the F.I.R. has also examined. He stated that he received information from Ahibaran and Kailash about the accident and thereafter he lodged the F.I.R. Only the police have directed him to sign the papers. The driver of the tractor, Mr. Kalyan Singh, who lodged the F.I.R. has also examined. He stated that he received information from Ahibaran and Kailash about the accident and thereafter he lodged the F.I.R. Only the police have directed him to sign the papers. The driver of the tractor, Mr. Mukesh Jatav, has also been examined. He stated that he purchased Iron Rod (Saria) from Morar and after loading the aforesaid Iron Rod (Saria), he had been going to his house and at that time, deceased Rambaran had come in front of him and there was a collusion. 9. On behalf of the Insurance Company, Mr. C. Tirkey, Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company has been examined. He stated that the tractor bearing Registration No. MP 07 HA-4654 has been insured by the Insurance Company. Copy of the Insurance Policy has been filed as Ex. D/6 and the tractor was insured from 1-11-2006 to 31-10-2007. The tractor was insured for agriculture purpose. Another person Mr. Sumit Tiwari, who was working at the relevant time as Investigator, has also been examined as Non-applicant witness No. 3 on behalf of the Insurance Company. He has stated that at the relevant time, deceased Rambaran had been travelling in the trolley attached to the tractor. There were 3 to 4 persons in the trolley. After investigating the facts, he submitted his investigation report. 10. Copy of the F.I.R. has been filed by the claimants themselves as Ex. P/1. It has been lodged by Kalyan Singh. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. that his son Rambaran had been coming to his house after loading Saria in a tractor bearing Registration No. MP 07 HA-4654. The tractor was being driven by Mukesh Jatav. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, it became turtle and in the aforesaid accident, Rambaran, Ahibaran Singh, Anita and Mukesh received serious injuries. Ramavtar Jatav, Bhagat Singh Jatav and Basudev Jatav had been taken Rambaran to Hospital and, subsequently, Rambaran was died on the way to Hospital. Copy of the seizure memo has also been filed by the applicants as Ex. P/5. By the aforesaid seizure memo, the police seized a tractor bearing Registration No. MP 07 HA-4654, A case was also registered under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the tractor. 11. In the F.I.R., Ex. Copy of the seizure memo has also been filed by the applicants as Ex. P/5. By the aforesaid seizure memo, the police seized a tractor bearing Registration No. MP 07 HA-4654, A case was also registered under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the tractor. 11. In the F.I.R., Ex. P/1, it has clearly been mentioned that the accident occurred when the deceased had been travelling in the trolley attached to the tractor. The F.I.R. was lodged by Kalyan Singh. Although in his evidence before the Claims Tribunal Kalyan Singh stated that he has not lodged the F.I.R., he only informed the police about the accident and the police had taken his signature on some papers. 12. In the claim application, the claimants have narrated the story that on 15-2-2007, deceased Rambaran had been coming from Morar to his house on his bicycle and he was dashed from rear side by the tractor bearing Registration No. MP 07 HA-4654 and due to the aforesaid collusion, the trolley, attached to the tractor, became turtle and it turned over Rambaran due to which, Rambaran was died. It is also a fact that the police did not seize the bicycle from the spot. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Patel and another vs. Smt. Terasi Saket and others, reported in 2008(2) MPLJ 8 : ILR (2008) M. P. 282 has held as under with regard to the admissibility of the documents and F.I.R. in evidence which has been filed by the claimants themselves: First we consider whether marriage party was being carried at the time of accident, though it has been stated by Terasi (CW.1), widow of deceased, that her husband was coming back after administering fertilizer from the agricultural field, at that time he met with an accident, she has denied the suggestion made in cross-examination that he was coming back from the marriage party. Kedar (CW.2) has also supported the version of CW.1 and has also denied the suggestion made in the cross-examination that marriage party was being carried. Kedar (CW.2) has also supported the version of CW.1 and has also denied the suggestion made in the cross-examination that marriage party was being carried. Sarvjeet Singh Jammu (NAW.1) has stated that enquiry was conducted by the insurer, it was found in the enquiry that marriage party was being carried in the tractor trolley at the relevant time, deceased was resident of Jaunpur and had come to attend the marriage, he himself was not personally aware of the facts. He has deposed on the basis of enquiry report. Rajesh Trivedi (NAW.2) had made an enquiry, he has stated that on enquiry he has found that marriage party was being carried, no doubt about it that statements of Rajesh Trivedi and Sarvjeet Singh Jammu may not be enough to hold that marriage party was being carried, but when we consider the FIR which was the immediate document and there was no doubt with respect to correctness of the facts mentioned therein that marriage party was being carried at the time of accident in the tractor trolley, that being so the finding recorded by the tribunal is based on proper assessment of evidence, man may lie but circumstances do not is the cardinal principle of evaluation of evidence. The immediate conduct evidence reflected in the shape of FIR indicates that marriage party in fact was being carried. It was not necessary to examine the lodger of the FIR as the document was filed on behalf of claimants and they have relied upon it, once they have relied upon it, the document could have been considered forming part of evidence and its evidenciary value has been found in the instant case. We place reliance on a decision of Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla and others (Civil Appeal No. 2526/2007) decided on 15th May, 2007 in which it has been considered that FIR can be relied upon, it is not necessary to examine the lodger of FIR so as to prove it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the tribunal is proper in the instant case that there was violation of policy inasmuch as marriage party was being carried at the time of accident, case set up by the claimants has been rightly rejected. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the tribunal is proper in the instant case that there was violation of policy inasmuch as marriage party was being carried at the time of accident, case set up by the claimants has been rightly rejected. 14. After going through the evidence of the case, this Court has come to the conclusion that in order to get compensation from Insurance Company, the claimants and owner have changed the version of the accident and stated that the deceased had been going on a bicycle. In the F.I.R., it has clearly been mentioned that, the deceased was travelling in a trolley attached with the tractor. Apart from this, if there was an accident when the deceased was riding on his bicycle, then certainly, police must have seized the aforesaid bicycle. Apart from this, the version putforth by the claimants is also does not appear to be plausible (acceptable). Because this Court feels that if the tractor was dashed by the bicycle then certainly the bicyclist must have been thrown upto some distance. However, the claimants themselves have stated that due to dash by the tractor to the bicyclist, the trolley, attached to the tractor became turtle and turned down and the deceased came beneath the trolley. This version support the case that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, it became turtle and the trolley attached to the tractor also turned down. It also finds support from the F.I.R. and the fact that no bicycle has been seized by the police. 15. In cases with regard to compensation, a Court cannot rely hundred percent on oral evidence of the claimants because it is general observance that the claimants are not deposing correctly and innocently before the Claims Tribunal. Their aim is to anyhow get higher compensation. In this case, the tractor was insured by the Insurance Company for agriculture purposes and it was being used for commercial purpose for transporting Iron Rod (Saria) and also the deceased was travelling in the trolley as passenger. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Insurance Company Limited vs. Serjerao and others, reported in 2008(1) TAC 6 (SC), with regard to liability of the persons travelling in a trolley has held as under: 8. 16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Insurance Company Limited vs. Serjerao and others, reported in 2008(1) TAC 6 (SC), 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. vs. Brij Mohan and ors., 2007(7) Scale 753, 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 Smt. Yallwwa's case (supra) and Brij Mohan's case (supra). 17. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Vedwati and others, reported in 2007(2) TAC 8 (SC), with regard to liability of payment of compensation of the Insurance Company for the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle as under: 11. Third party risks in the background of vehicles which are subject-matter of insurance are dealt with in Chapter VIII of the old Act and Chapter XI of the Act. Proviso to section 147 of the Act (sic) is to be (sic) with section 96 of the old Act, Proviso to section 147 of the Act reads as follows: Provided that a policy shall not be required (i) to cover liability in respect of the death arising out of and in the course of his employment of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of or bodily injury to, any such employee-- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicles, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. 12. 12. It is of significance that proviso appended to section 95 of the old Act contained Clause (ii) which does not find place in the Act. The same reads as follows: except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises. 13. The difference in the language of "goods vehicle" as appear in the old Act and "goods carriage" in the Act is of significance. A bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clear from the expression "in addition to passengers" as contained in definition of "goods vehicle" in the old Act. The position becomes further clear because the expressions used is "goods carriage" is solely for the carriage of goods. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is not contemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar to Clause (ii) of the proviso appended to section 95 of the old Act prescribing requirement of insurance policy. Even section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverage against death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". The proviso makes it further clear that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in goods vehicle would be limited to liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'W.C. Act'). There is no reference to any passenger in "goods carriage." 14. 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. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Patel and another vs. Smt. Terasi Saket and others, reported in 2008 (2) MPLJ 8 : ILR (2008) M. P. 282, with regard to liability of the payment of compensation to the persons travelling in trolley attached with a tractor as Baratis held as under: 10. 18. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Arun Kumar Patel and another vs. Smt. Terasi Saket and others, reported in 2008 (2) MPLJ 8 : ILR (2008) M. P. 282, with regard to liability of the payment of compensation to the persons travelling in trolley attached with a tractor as Baratis held as under: 10. Coming to the submission based on Rule 97 of M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, that has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Bhav Singh vs. Smt. Savirani and others, M. A. No. 687/99, decided on 11-10-2007 [2008 (1) MPLJ (FB) 72], in which the Full Bench has opined that Rule 97 is not with respect to section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, Rule 97 has been framed with respect to permit conditions not to cover the risk under section 147 which is contained in a different chapter of Motor Vehicles Act. Full Bench of this Court has held thus: 12. Regarding the Division Bench judgment in Sarvanlal and others (supra), we find that the Division Bench has relied on not only the judgment of the Full Bench in Jugal Kishore (supra) but also clause (vii) of Rule 97 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (for short "the Rules of 1994") made by the State of M.P. So far as the judgment of the Full Bench in Jugal Kishore (supra) is concerned, we have already clarified the position of law. Regarding clause (7) of Rule 97 of the Rules of 1994, we find that the Rules of 1994 have been made by the State of M.P. under section 96 of the Act and in particular sub-section (2) (xxxi) which provides that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules under section 96 may be made with respect to the carriage of persons other than the driver in goods carriage. Section 96 is placed in Chapter-V of the Act which relates to "Control of Transport Vehicles". Sub-section (1) of section 96 of the Act states that the State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter-V. Hence, Rule 97 of the Rules of 1994 has been made by the State Government to give effect to the provisions of Chapter-V of the Act, which, as we have seen, relates to control of transport vehicles". These rules obviously cannot have a bearing in interpreting the provisions of Chapter-XII of the Act including sections 145 and 147 of the Act. As we have indicated above, the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured in respect of death or bodily injury suffered by a passenger or an employee would be covered by the provisions of section 147 of the Act or the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Thus, the decision of the Division Bench in Sarwan Lal (supra) insofar as it relies on Rule 97 of the Rules of 1994 to hold the insurer liable for death or bodily injury suffered by the passengers does not lay down the correct law. 19. Hence, in my opinion, the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation is contrary to law. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is allowed. It is hereby held that the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation and the claimants are free to recover the compensation from the other non-applicants. Hence, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent that the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. If the Insurance Company has paid any amount of compensation to the claimants, the Insurance Company is free to recover the same from the owner of the tractor. Impugned award is modified to the above extent. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to cost.