JUDGMENT:- The unfortunate death of deceased, aged 35 years, while travelling in a Trolley, attached with a Tractor, subjected to compensation by his legal heirs and dismissal thereof is subject of challenge in the First Appeal. The accident, death and Insurance is not in controversy. 2. The Counsel representing the appellant would canvass, it was the sheer negligent act driving on the part of the respondent/driver of the tractor which occasioned the accident causing loss of life of deceased Madhavrao and, hence he and the owner of the tractor is responsible to meet the claim of compensation to the tune of Rs.l,00,000/-. The deceased was agricultural labourer drawing monthly salary of Rs.400/and, considering dependency and his age, the claim should have been entertained for the said amount of Rs.l,00,000/-. The appreciation of evidence by the learned Judge, is more leaning to surmises than to the factual situation and, therefore, it needs interference. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant and also for the respondents took me to the evidence of witnesses, PW Nos.1 to 3 and DW No.1 Baburao. They have independently tried to appreciate and castigate such evidence to convince their respective points. 4. The crucial evidence in this matter will be of PW No.3 Dr. Rajendra Jawalekar who had examined the dead body at the time of carrying post-mortem. PW No.3 Dr. Rajendra Jawalekar did not notice internal or external injuries, there was oozing of blood from mouth, nose and ear. However, he accepted that it could not be on account of any external injury or it also could not be on account of a person if run over by a wheel of the trolley. The weight of the trolley, with 4 or 5 persons in it, makes the things more clear that it, if comes in contact with human body, its natural impact is, in causing such person bruises, fracture to particular part of his body or leading to fatal injuries. But barring heart rupture, the deceased had no other external injuries. Even if the height of the trolley, as is stated, is to be considered, the fall due to jerk, getting the trolley near the brook, will not be so fatal to cause death of deceased owing to the injuries. But barring heart rupture, the deceased had no other external injuries. Even if the height of the trolley, as is stated, is to be considered, the fall due to jerk, getting the trolley near the brook, will not be so fatal to cause death of deceased owing to the injuries. The learned Judge did not accept that the death was due to heart attack as tried to be suggested by the respondent and, more so, by DW No.1 Baburao. 5. The fact remains, it ws not the deceased alone who was travelling in the vehicle but he was accompanied with Shamrao, PW. No.2 and 4/5 other persons. However, Shamrao, PW No.2, who had come to support the claim of the claimants, about the so called rash and negligence on the part of the driver if is to be believed, it was incumbent upon him or, for that purpose, incumbent upon by other person, travelling in the trolley, to have produced medical certificate of the injuries suffered by him during the said accident. It is unfortunate, no such medical certificate is surfacing. The evidence of PW No.2 Shamrao and DW No.1 Baburao, both eye-witnesses, virtually runs against each other. There being divergent oral evidence of these two witnesses, the medical evidence of Dr. Rajendra will naturally prevail and the learned Judge has given his conscious finding as to how accident has taken place. 6. It cannot be said that the learned Judge was swayed away or has observed, by adopting surmises and conjectures. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The findings recorded cannot be said to be flowing contrary to the record or evidence. The observations are in tune with what was placed as evidence before the learned Judge. 7. Bainabai, the claimant, I agree, could not be an eye-witness, she has given account of the accident and she also reiterated that it was owner of the tractor informed her about the accident due to which, she went near the site, to see that her husband was lifted by the villagers. The circumstances unlesh (siced.), the deceased while travelling stood in trolley, lost balance due to acute heart arrest, and fell. 8. The circumstances unlesh (siced.), the deceased while travelling stood in trolley, lost balance due to acute heart arrest, and fell. 8. The legislative intent by virtue of amendment in Motor Vehicle Act, and conceptual different between old Sections 2(8), 2(25), 2(29), and 2(33) with correspondent provisions i.e. Section 2(14), 2(35), 2(40) and 2(47) also makes the things more clear and vibrant. Old Act provided terminology as "goods vehicle" while new Act sets it as "goods carriage". This demonstrate, legislative intent was to prohibit goods vehicle from carrying any passenger. Goods carriage is solely for carriage of goods. Thus the amendment sheds away carrying of passenger in goods carriage. It is more than clear, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act do not enjoin any statutory liability on owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any kind of passenger travelling in a Trolley. Thus, victim carried risk at his own peril by travelling in the goods vehicle, the Trolley. The driver, or owner, in the factual and legal position would not be liable, answerable to meet the claim. 9. Since the evidence is properly and coherently scanned by the learned Judge, in this situation of the matter, it is difficult to digest that the accident in which deceased lost his life was due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent, the tractor driver. First Appeal dismissed. Appeal dismissed.