JUDGMENT:- This is an appeal filed by original respondent no.3 Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Ex-officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and District Judge. Beed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.91 of 1984 decided on 2.11.1990. 2. Present respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the original claimants who had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.91 of 1984 for compensation in respect of death of Balkishan Satyanarayan Mantri. Respondent no.3 is the driver and respondent no.4 is the owner of the tractor bearing No. MXV -6818. The tractor was insured with the appellant. 3. It is case of the present respondent nos. 1 and 2 that respondent no. I is widow and respondent no.2 is daughter of deceased Balkishan Mantri. Balkishan Mantri and one Bharat Jaju were proceeding on Spark Moped bearing No. MZY -6163 on 4.6.1984 at about 7.15 p.m. When they were near entrance gate of Girwali Sub-Station, tractor no. MXV6818 along its trolley was plying on the road and it was driven by respondent no.3. The tractor was owned by respondent no.4 and insured with the appellant. Respondent no.3 was driving the tractor-trolley in rash and negligent manner and he gave dash to the Spark moped, as a result Balkishan fell down and sustained serious injuries and died in the hospital on same day. 4. Present respondent nos.3 and 4 who were driver and owner of the tractor trolley filed written statement at Exh.29 and admitted that the tractor-trolley was involved in the accident and deceased had died. They also admitted relationship of original claimants (respondent nos. 1 and 2) with the deceased. However, according to them, the deceased was not 40 years of age as claimed. They denied that respondent no.3 driver was rash and negligent in driving the tractor-trolley. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Spark moped which was driven in very high speed and it gave dash to the tractor-trolley. It is stated that deceased was employee of one Baldava and was getting salary of Rs.500/- per month and his annual income was not Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60.000/- as claimed. 5. Present appellant - Insurance Company filed its written statement at Exh.28 and raised almost same contentions. It is further stated that the trolley bearing No.MTB-6309 was not insured with the Insurance Company, though the tractor was insured with the Insurance Company. 5. Present appellant - Insurance Company filed its written statement at Exh.28 and raised almost same contentions. It is further stated that the trolley bearing No.MTB-6309 was not insured with the Insurance Company, though the tractor was insured with the Insurance Company. As per the policy its liability is only to the extent of Rs.50.000/and it is not liable to pay beyond Rs.50,000/-. Since tractor driver was not rash and negligent the claim petition be dismissed. 6. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and ultimately came to a conclusion that the present respondent nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for death of Balkishan and same should be paid with interest of 12 per cent per annum by the present appellant and respondent nos.3 and 4. It is this award which is challenged in this appeal. 7. At the time of hearing Shri. Osmanpurkar holding for Shri. K.V. Kulkarni, advocate for the appellant argued that the liability of the Insurance Company is only to the extent of Rs.50,000/- as per the policy produced on record. No fault liability amount paid already was not considered. It is also argued that the matter may be remanded to lead additional evidence to show that the tractor trolley was not used for business purpose though as per the policy it could be used only for business purpose. 8. There is nothing on record to show that the Insurance Company had no sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in the Trial Court. In fact, it produced Insurance policy of the tractor at Exh.68 to show that its liability is only to the extent of Rs.50.000/-. There is nothing on record to show that the Insurance Company wanted to lead any additional evidence and same was not allowed to be adduced. So prayer for remand has no merit. 9. The Tribunal in para 13 of the judgment has considered the defence regarding limited liability and held that the Insurance policy produced at Exh.68 was covering comprehensive risk and. therefore, liability cannot be said to be limited to only Rs.50.000/ -. Moreover, the certificate Exh.66 by Regional Transport Officer showed that the respondent! driver of the tractor Sk. Sattar was having driving license for driving heavy vehicle and it was valid upto 17.9.1991 and. therefore, the Insurance Company is liable. 10. therefore, liability cannot be said to be limited to only Rs.50.000/ -. Moreover, the certificate Exh.66 by Regional Transport Officer showed that the respondent! driver of the tractor Sk. Sattar was having driving license for driving heavy vehicle and it was valid upto 17.9.1991 and. therefore, the Insurance Company is liable. 10. When the record and proceedings was called from the Tribunal, it is revealed that Insurance policy Exh.68 was wrongly included in 'D' file and it is not there in the record and proceedings received. So permission was granted to the Insurance Company to produce copy of the original policy and it is produced on record and it is marked Exh.'X' and considered at the time of hearing of appeal with consent of all parties present. 11. Learned advocate Shri. Tungar for the owner of the tractor-trolley has stated that the policy produced at Exh.'X' in appeal is a comprehensive policy. He referred to the schedule of premium and argued that even third party risk is specifically covered as premium of Rs.120/- was paid; whereas learned advocate Shri. Osmanpurkar for the appellant pointed out that as per the policy, the tractor trolley was insured for 'business use' and so far as limits of liability are concerned, it is stated that the limit of the amount of Company's liability under Section II-I(i) in respect of anyone accident is Rs.50,000/- and Section II, clause I of the policy which deals with liability to third parties, is as follows: "SECTION II - LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES - 1. Subject to the Limits of Liability the Company will indemnify the Insured against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses which the Insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of - (i) Death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle. (ii) Damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle." 12. Learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Keshav Bahadur and Ors. [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 331]. (ii) Damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle." 12. Learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Keshav Bahadur and Ors. [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 331]. In that case the Supreme Court considered Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and held that so far as liability of insurer towards third party risk is concerned the terms of policy and premium paid showed that liability of insurer was limited to Rs.50,000/-. In para 7 it is observed that even if a vehicle is a subject matter of comprehensive insurance and higher premium is paid on that score, limits of liability with regard to third party risk does not become unlimited or higher beyond the statutory liability fixed. For this purpose, a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the insured and the insurer and separate premium has to be paid in respect of additional amount of liability undertaken by the insurer in that regard. 13. Reliance was also placed on the case of this Court in the case of Purshottam Narayan Mehta Ys. Smt. Mamati Jayram Ambonkar and ors. [2006(3) ALL MR 58]. In that case also it was held that liability of insurance company was limited to Rs.50.000/ - as per insurance policy and hence it cannot be directed to make payment beyond contractual liability. 14. It is argued by Shri. Tungar holding for Shri. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.4 and Shri. V.R. Jain holding for Shri. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for respondent no.2 argued that in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Keshav Bahadur and ors. [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 331] (supra) the vehicle was a goods vehicle and tractor is not a goods vehicle. Learned advocate relied upon a case of Rajasthan High Court reported in Rajendra Kumar Vs. Suman Lata Chaturvedi and ors. [ 1993 ACJ 1185 ]. In that case a truck was stationary and a taxi car and the tractor collided and after the accident the car also struck the truck which was standing. It was held in that case that the tractor was not a goods vehicle. Suman Lata Chaturvedi and ors. [ 1993 ACJ 1185 ]. In that case a truck was stationary and a taxi car and the tractor collided and after the accident the car also struck the truck which was standing. It was held in that case that the tractor was not a goods vehicle. Their Lordships in paras 6 to 14 considered various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and held that the tractor involved in the case was not a goods vehicle and the case is covered not by Section 95(2)(a) as argued, but fell under Section 95(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939. Here we may refer to the observations made in para 13, in which it is specifically observed that the tractor involved in that case could not be said to be a goods vehicle as in the insurance policy the vehicle had been described as a "tractor with, compressor". So since it was a case of tractor with compressor it was held not to be a goods vehicle. In that case the tractor was not used or meant to be used as part of goods vehicle. 15. Another case cited is the case of Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others [ AIR 2003 SC 2877 ]. In that case plea that policy being comprehensive covers all risks was negatived. It is observed in para 14 as follows:- "14. The appellant's final submission was that as the policy was a comprehensive one it would cover all risks including the death of the khalasi. The submission is unacceptable. An insurance policy only covers the person or classes of persons specified in the policy. A comprehensive policy merely means that the loss sustained by such person/persons will be payable up to the insured amount irrespective of the actual loss suffered. (See New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. J. M. Jaya, 2002(2) SCC 278 ; Colinvaux's Law of Insurance (7th Edition) pp.93-94)." 16. Learned advocate also referred to the case of Capital Roadways and Finan.e (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Mohan Bai [2000 ACJ 1503]. In that case Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering case in which from terms of policy on record it was found that the liability of insurance company towards third party was not limited to Rs.50,000/-. Learned advocate also referred to the case of Capital Roadways and Finan.e (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Mohan Bai [2000 ACJ 1503]. In that case Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering case in which from terms of policy on record it was found that the liability of insurance company towards third party was not limited to Rs.50,000/-. It is observed that under Section 95(1)(b) the liability of insurance company for compulsory third party insurance was unlimited and limit of Rs.50,000/- per person as provided in sub-section 2(b)(i) and (ii) of Section 95 is in respect of persons or passengers carried in the bus, but this case cannot be followed in view of the subsequent Supreme Court pronouncement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Keshav Bahadur and Ors. [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 331] (supra) decided in 2004. 17. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chinnamma and others [2004(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 1200] tractor with trailer was considered as good carriage within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it is held that a tractor with trailer mayor may not be goods carriage within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act depending upon use for which it is adapted. Paras 16 and 17 of the judgment are as follows:- 16. 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 0 intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle". 17.A tractor fitted with a trailer mayor 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 purpose, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. 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 purpose, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. 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 market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. 18. Reference may also be made to the case of Branch Manager, UnIted India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Shekarappa and Ors. [2007(6) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 17]. In that case the tractor was insured, but trailer was not insured as in the present case. However, tractor owner had hired trailer for transport of fodder and coolie who was in trailer met with a accident as the tractor was being driven rashly and negligently. It was held that the tractor owner is liable. It is observed in paras 5. 8 and 9 relying upon certain authorities that tractor is a motor vehicle; tractor attached with trailer is a goods vehicle if tractor draws a trailer and the accident is caused by such tractor trailer then vehicle causing the accident would not be a tractor but a goods vehicle. The Rajasthan High Court in Sajid Mian Vs. Ganga and ors. [1(1990) ACC 20] held in para 10 that the trolley or trailer can only move with the help of the tractor. The tractor in question is already insured and the driver of the tractor in the present case is held to have driven the tractor in a high speed and negligently on account of which the trolley overturned and three persons died and, therefore, the tractor owner is liable. 19. In the present case as observed in the insurance policy itself, the tractor was insured for business purpose by Mr. Vinayak Devshatvar. The written statement filed in this case by respondent nos. 1 and 2 show that respondent no.2 was a contractor. 19. In the present case as observed in the insurance policy itself, the tractor was insured for business purpose by Mr. Vinayak Devshatvar. The written statement filed in this case by respondent nos. 1 and 2 show that respondent no.2 was a contractor. He was given contract by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Civil Division, Ambajogai for the construction of roads and cable structure at Girwali Sub-Station. The vehicle was being used for that purpose and accident had taken place near Girwali Electricity Sub-Station. It is held that at the time of accident the tractor trolley was being taken by respondent no.1 towards Girwali Sub-Station from the State High Way when the accident had occurred. So it is clear from the facts of the present case that the tractor trolley was being used for business purpose i.e. construction of roads. etc. and, therefore. it can be considered as goods vehicle in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that view of the matter the liability of appellant insurance company is only to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. 20. It is argued before this court that there is contributory negligence by moped driver, but the Tribunal has considered this aspect in detail in para 2. It is observed after considering evidence of the eye witness that tractor driver had given side to moped driver and suddenly he brought the tractor to the right side of the road without blowing horn or without giving signal due to which rear side portion of the trolley dashed against the moped on which deceased and pillion rider were travelling. Witness Bharat was the eye· witness who is examined in the matter and his evidence clearly disclosed how the accident had occurred. So in view of detail reasons given in para 2 of the judgment by the Tribunal, I do not find any merit so far as argument that there was contributory negligence of moped driver. From the written statement filed by original respondent nos. 1 and 2, particularly circumstances described in paras 15 to 17 show that view taken by the Tribunal that accident occurred as suddenly the tractor trolley had turned to right side appears to be correct. 21. So considering the circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the appeal will have to be allowed only to the extent that the liability of insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. 21. So considering the circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the appeal will have to be allowed only to the extent that the liability of insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. 22. It is argued before me that the Tribunal did not include no fault liability amount in the amount of compensation of Rs.2,00.000/- awarded. The deceased was about 31 years of age and he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. So even if we consider dependency of present respondent nos. 1 and 2 as Rs.2,000/- per month, yearly dependency would be Rs.24,000/- and if we consider 15 as proper multiplier, the compensation would be much more than what is awarded. Besides this, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are also entitled to compensation for loss of love and affection and loss of estate. So even though no fault liability amount is not considered in the amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded, I do not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the same. In fact, if we go by multiplier method, compensation would have been much more, but since there is no cross objection or appeal by respondent nos. 1 and 2, amount of compensation awarded will have to be maintained. 23. In the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that respondent nos. 1 and 2 who were original claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from respondent nos.3 and 4. The appellant insurance company is liable to reimburse respondent no.4 (vehicle owner) to the extent of Rs.50,000/- as per the insurance policy and as such liability of appellant is only to the extent of Rs.50,000/·. In this view of the matter, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to recover Rs.50,000/- from the appellant insurance company inclusive of amount already paid or deposited by the appellant insurance company. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to recover rest of the compensation from respondent nos. 3 and 4 who were respectively driver and owner of the tractor trolley. If any excess amount is paid by the appellant insurance company, same can be recovered by them from respondent no.4 who is owner of the vehicle. Appeal is thus partly allowed and disposed of with no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.