JUDGMENT : H.K. RATHOD, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati for appellants and learned advocate Mr. Thakkar for respondent Nos. 3 Insurance Company. 2. By filing this appeal, appellants claimants have challenged award made by Claims Tribunal at Patan in claim petition No. 3707 of 2002 vide Ext. 52 decided on 28th November, 2006 wherein Claims Tribunal has exonerated Insurance Company as risk of any passenger or any employee is not covered in policy Ext. 32, therefore, Insurance Company is not held liable by Claims Tribunal. This decision of Claims Tribunal is under challenge in this appeal by appellants. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati for appellants submitted that deceased was employee of owner or contractor and, therefore, deceased ought to have been considered third party and risk of third party is covered under policy even though Claims Tribunal has committed gross error in exonerating Insurance Company. He submits that it was proved by claimants before Claims Tribunal that deceased was employee of contractor. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar for respondent Nos. 3 Insurance. Company submitted that Ext. 32 being an Act Policy, no additional premium was paid by owner insured covering risk of any passenger or any employee and employee cannot be considered as third party and, therefore, risk of employee is not covered in policy Ext. 32 and this aspect has been rightly appreciated by Claims Tribunal and Claims Tribunal has rightly exonerated Insurance Company. For that, according to him, no error is committed by Claims Tribunal which would require interference of this Court. 5. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates. I have also perused impugned award made by Claims Tribunal. On 30th October, 1999, deceased Vastuji Kadvaji Thakor was going in Tactor No. GJ.2.L.2147. When said tractor reached near Saraswati Bridge, driver of said tractor drove said tractor in a rash and negligent manner with an excessive speed and as a result of that, tractor turned turtle and deceased Vastuji was crushed under said tractor and caused impugned accident. That in said accident, Vastuji Kadvaji succumbed to injuries. Based upon said facts, aforesaid claim petition was filed by claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- against respondents. It was their case that deceased was 35 years old and was hale and hearty and was earning Rs. 2000/- by doing labour work and used to maintain whole family. 6. That in said accident, Vastuji Kadvaji succumbed to injuries. Based upon said facts, aforesaid claim petition was filed by claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- against respondents. It was their case that deceased was 35 years old and was hale and hearty and was earning Rs. 2000/- by doing labour work and used to maintain whole family. 6. Before Claims Tribunal, reply was filed vide Ext. 26 on behalf of opponents Nos. 1 and 2 denying averments made by claimants in their claim petition. Reply was also filed by Insurance Company at Ext. 30 denying averments made in claim petition. Vide Ext. 13, issues have been framed and thereafter, Claims Tribunal has examined question of negligence in affirmative holding gross negligence on part of opponent Nos. 1 and, therefore, owner of vehicle as well as driver and contractor are liable for said accident. 7. Before Claims Tribunal, for proving claim, one of the claimants namely Taraben was examined at Ext. 33 and it was deposed by her that her husband had gone as labourer of opponent Nos. 2 in vehicle i.e. Tractor involved in accident. Her husband was engaged by owner opponent Nos. 2 as his employee and in capacity of employee, deceased was moving in tractor and when tractor turned turtle, he was crushed and died at the spot. Driver of tractor opponent Nos. 1 Domalji Movtaji Thakor was examined at Ext. 45 and one witness Bhupatji was examined at Ext. 42. There is no dispute between parties as regards facts recorded. Question is, whether Insurance Company is liable or not for payment of compensation. That aspect has been examined by Claims Tribunal in para 11 of award as under : Learned Advocate Mr. L.S. Rajput appeared for the claimants have vehemently argued before this Court that this deceased Vastuji was a third party and in view of provision of Section 147(1)(b) Proviso (I) of Motor Vehicle Act and deceased Vastuji being a third party, the Insurance Co. L.S. Rajput appeared for the claimants have vehemently argued before this Court that this deceased Vastuji was a third party and in view of provision of Section 147(1)(b) Proviso (I) of Motor Vehicle Act and deceased Vastuji being a third party, the Insurance Co. is liable to pay compensation in death of this Vastuji but the policy in question does not cover liability of any labour [except a driver of the vehicle] carried in the tractor, no extra premium is paid to cover such larger liability and no person other than driver could travelling the tractor and there was no insurance coverage for any passenger and therefore, in the instant case, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable if on this point any reference is required, it is here Hon'ble Andhrapradesh High Court has held in a case of Surjitsingh and others v. Jagraji Singh and others, reported in A.I.R. 2000 (NOC) 1494 (H.P.), that the tractor trolley carried victims turned turtle resulting into their death, no person other than driver could travel in the tractor and there was no insurance coverage for any passenger, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to them, this case has been decided on 3rd April, 2006. 8. It was case of respondent Nos. 3 Insurance Company that deceased was not a third party and Insurance Company is, therefore, not liable to pay compensation to claimants. Ext. 32 insurance policy was on record where no risk of any passenger or employee is covered by this policy. In policy, only risk of driver is covered, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to claimants. Claims Tribunal has considered one decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of Surjitsing and others v. Jagraji Singh and others, reported in A.I.R. 2000 (NOC) 1494 (H.P.), wherein it was held that the tractor trolley carried victims turned turtle resulting into their death, no person other than driver could travel in the tractor and there was no insurance coverage for any passenger, Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to them. However, Claims Tribunal has examined question of quantum and came to conclusion that claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,05,000/- towards compensation but it should have to be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 driver and owner of vehicle and Insurance Company is exonerated. 9. However, Claims Tribunal has examined question of quantum and came to conclusion that claimants are entitled for Rs. 2,05,000/- towards compensation but it should have to be paid by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 driver and owner of vehicle and Insurance Company is exonerated. 9. Claimant is not able to satisfy Claims Tribunal that risk of employee is covered by policy Ext. 32 which was on record, issued by respondent Nos. 3 Insurance Company. Ext. 32 insurance policy being an Act Policy, and since no additional premium was paid covering risk of passenger or employee, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to claimants. These facts are not in dispute between parties after considering policy Ext. 32. Recently, in case of New India Insurance Company v. Darshana Devi and others, 2008 (2) G.L.H. 393 : 2008 (2) T.A.C. 20, Apex Court has held as under in para 23 : Yet again, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan & Ors., 2007 (7) SCALE 753 : 2007 (3) T.A.C. 20, wherein one of us (S.B. Sinha, J.) was a member, this Court noticed Asha Rani and other decisions. Following the same, it was stated: "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 allowed in view of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors., (2003) 2 S.C.C. 223 : 2003 (1) T.A.C. 1, wherein the earlier decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh, (2000) 1 S.C.C. 237 : 2000 (1) T.A.C. 403, was overruled. In Asha Rani (supra) it was, inter alia, held : "25. Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of "public service vehicle". Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a "goods carriage". 26. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It does not speak of any passenger in a "goods carriage". 26. In view of the changes in the relevant provisions in the 1988 Act vis-a-vis the 1939 Act, we are of the opinion that the meaning of the words "any person" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. "a third party". Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act, we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable therefor. 27. Furthermore/sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 speaks of liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, whereas sub-clause (ii) thereof deals with liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.' [See also National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors., (2005) 12 S.C.C. 243 : 2005 (20) T.A.C. 1; United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Ors., (2006) 4 S.C.C. 404 : 2006 (2) T.A.C. 312; Prem Kumar & Ors. v. Prahlad Dev & Ors., 2008 (1) SCALE 531 : 2008 (1) T.A.C. 803 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prithvi Raj, 2008 (1) SCALE 727 ] 10. In view of aforesaid observations made by Apex Court, owner of vehicle insured is not duty bound to cover risk of any passenger being compulsory insurance in a goods vehicle. Therefore, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati that labourer travelling in tractor who died in said accident is third party cannot be accepted. In view of aforesaid observations made by Apex Court, owner of vehicle insured is not duty bound to cover risk of any passenger being compulsory insurance in a goods vehicle. Therefore, contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati that labourer travelling in tractor who died in said accident is third party cannot be accepted. In aforesaid decision, Apex Court has also examined question who is third party in light of Section 147 while interpreting phrase 'any person', therefore, according to my opinion, contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Prajapati cannot be accepted and view taken by Claims Tribunal is perfectly right as well as legal and valid and Claims Tribunal has not committed any error warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, there is no substance in this appeal and same, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.