ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. This appeal is directed on behalf of Appellant/Insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (In short 'the Act') being aggrieved by the award dated 12.8.2005 passed by IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rewa, in Claim Case No. 42/ 05 whereby, holding the offending vehicle being driven by Respondent No. 4 under the employment of Respondent No. 3, the registered owner of the same contrary to the terms of the insurance policy, without having any driving licence, the Appellant insurer is not liable to bear the claim and pursuant to it the claim of the Respondent No. 1 regarding the injury sustained by him in the alleged vehicular accident, was awarded against the Respondent No. 3 & 4 for the sum of Rs. 29,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 16.7.2004. Simultaneously while passing such award it is also directed that the awarded sum shall be paid by the Appellant first and thereafter, the same could be recovered by it from the Respondents No. 3 and 4, the registered owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. The Appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the aforesaid condition directing it to pay and recover the awarded sum from the Respondents No. 3 & 4. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that the Respondent No. 1 herein filed the impugned claim contending that on dated 13.4.2004 at about 7 O'clock in the evening, while sitting in the trolley bearing registration No. MP/53/M/1714 which was carrying by tractor bearing registration No. MP/53/M/1713, was going to village Rampur Naikin. Such tractor was being driven by Respondent No. 4 under the authority and employment of Respondent No. 3 in a rash and negligent manner resultantly, on the way the Respondent No. 1 fell down from such tractor-trolley and become unconscious. After the incident, the Respondent No. 4 fled away from the place of incident. The Respondent No. 1 was taken to the hospital by Ram Karan and Mahaveer present on the spot, where his MLC report was prepared and it was revealed that he sustained the fractures in the bone of waist and of hips and also sustained some grievous injuries on his left hand. The Respondent No. 1 was taken to the hospital by Ram Karan and Mahaveer present on the spot, where his MLC report was prepared and it was revealed that he sustained the fractures in the bone of waist and of hips and also sustained some grievous injuries on his left hand. On receiving the information, of the alleged incident a criminal offence was also registered against the Respondent No. 4/Driver at Police Station Rampur Naikin. Looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by the Respondent No. 1, after providing preliminary treatment at Primary Health Center, he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Rewa for further treatment. As per further averments, the aforesaid tractor was duly insured with the Appellant. With these pleadings, the Respondent No. 1/Raghunath Sahu has preferred his claim for the sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- and also claimed interest @ 18% per annum on such sum. 3. In reply of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, it is stated that on the date of incident, the Respondent No. 3, the registered owner of the tractor, while sitting On the same, was going to some place. On the way, without knowledge of Respondents No. 3 & 4 the Respondent No. 1 hanged at the back side of the trolley carrying by such tractor consequently, he fell down and sustained the injuries in such alleged incident. In such premises, no negligence was committed by Respondent No. 4 in driving the tractor. In the alleged accident the Respondent No. 1 had sustained only simple injuries. Subsequent to incident under persuasion of the villagers, the Respondent No. 1 has lodged a false report against the Respondent No. 4. Looking to the nature of the injuries sustained by Respondent No. 1 the claim is also preferred on higher side. The Respondent No. 1 has spent only Rs. 1,000/- for the treatment of the alleged injuries. In alternate it is stated that on holding any liability to indemnify the claim of Respondent No. 1 on them then, the vehicle being duly insured with the Appellant the same be saddled against it. With these pleadings, the prayer for dismissal of the claim is made. 4. In reply of Appellant/insurer by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that such tractor was driven by Respondent No. 4 without having any legal and effective driving license. With these pleadings, the prayer for dismissal of the claim is made. 4. In reply of Appellant/insurer by denying the averments of the claim petition, it is stated that such tractor was driven by Respondent No. 4 without having any legal and effective driving license. In the alleged insurance of the tractor only risk of the accident which would be happened while using the tractor for agricultural purposes was covered. The other risk was neither covered nor any additional premium was taken in that regard. It is also stated that as per insurance policy, only risk of driver was covered. The risk of any passenger sitting on the tractor or trolley, was not covered under such policy. It is also stated that the Respondent No. 1 had not sustained any fracture, he sustained only simple injuries. With these submissions, the prayer for exonerating the Appellant to indemnify the alleged claim of the Respondents No. 1 with a further prayer for dismissal of the same are made. 5. In view of pleadings of the parties, after framing the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same it was held by the Tribunal that the aforesaid tractor was driven by Respondent No. 4 in a rash and negligent manner due to that, on the way Respondent No. 1 traveling over the loaded chaff on trolley, carried by such tractor, fell down and sustained the alleged injuries. and taking into consideration the terms of the insurance policy of the tractor issued by the Appellant, it was also held that the risk of third party and it's driver having the effective driving licence while using the same for agricultural purposes was covered. While the risk of other person sitting on the tractor or traveling in the trolley was not covered. Pursuant to that by holding the alleged tractor was driven by Respondent No. 1 contrary to the policy without having any driving license, exonerating the Appellant to bear the liability of the claim awarded the claim of Respondent No. 1 for the abovementioned sum only against the Respondent No. 3 & 4 with a further direction to the Appellant to pay the awarded sum first to the claimant/ Respondent No. 1 and thereafter, it shall recover the same from the Respondents No. 3 & 4, the registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Being dissatisfied with this condition to pay and recover the Appellant, has come forward to this Court with this appeal. 6. Shri S.K. Rao, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ajit Agrawal counsel for the Appellant, after taking me through the pleadings, evidence adduced by the parties and the exhibited documents including the insurance policy of the offending tractor argued that in the available circumstances, after holding the offending tractor was insured with the Appellant under agricultural policy in which the risk of only driver was covered, and the additional premium covering the risk of passengers or the persons traveling or sitting on the tractor or trolley was not taken. In such premises, after exonerating the Appellant to bear the liability of awarded sum, the Tribunal did not have any authority to direct the Appellant/insurer to pay the awarded sum to the Respondent No. 1 /claimant first and then recover the same from the Respondents No. 3 & 4, the registered owner and driver. According to his submission when according to the terms of the policy, the risk of the person traveling on the trolley, by charging the additional premium, was not covered and secondly, as per finding of the Tribunal, the tractor was driven by Respondent No. 4 without having any driving licence, no such direction could be given by the Tribunal to the Appellant. In support of his contention, he placed his reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma and Ors. reported 2004 ACJ 1909 and prayed to modify the impugned award by deleting the aforesaid condition directing the Appellant to pay and recover the sum from the Respondents No. 3 & 4, by allowing this appeal. 7. Inspite service of the notice on the Respondents No. 1 to 4, no one appeared on behalf of any of them to assist the Court to adjudicate this appeal. 8. Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel, I have carefully gone through the record as well as the impugned award. It is undisputed findings of the Tribunal based on appreciation of the evidence that the alleged accident/incident was the cause and consequence of rash and negligent driving of such tractor by Respondent No. 4. Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the learned Senior counsel, I have carefully gone through the record as well as the impugned award. It is undisputed findings of the Tribunal based on appreciation of the evidence that the alleged accident/incident was the cause and consequence of rash and negligent driving of such tractor by Respondent No. 4. As per further findings due to such act of Respondent No. 4, the Respondent No. 1, who was traveling in the trolley loaded with the chaff and carrying by the offending tractor, fell down from the trolley and sustained the alleged injuries. Besides this there is undisputed finding that on the aforesaid date of the incident, the Respondent No. 4 was not having any driving license to drive the alleged vehicle. In such premises, this Court has to answer the question whether the liability to pay and recover the awarded sum has been rightly saddled against the Appellant by the Tribunal. 9. True it is that on the date of incident, the aforesaid tractor was duly insured with the Appellant for agricultural purposes along with covering the risk of driver with a condition if the same is driven by a person having duly and effective driving license, but the risk of other person, sitting on the tractor or traveling in the trolley was not covered and in that regard, no additional premium was taken by the Appellant/insurer. I have not found any evidence showing that the Respondent No. 1/claimant was traveling as owner of chaff or the goods in the alleged trolley. So, it could not be said that the Respondent No. 1 was traveling along with his goods in such trolley. Even otherwise, for the sake of argument, even if it is deemed that the Respondent No. 1 was traveling along with his goods in such trolley, even then, it could not be said that such trolley was in used for agricultural purposes for which, the same was insured or secondly, in the lack of any premium covering the risk of passengers sitting on the trolley or on the tractor, in view of provision of Section 147 (1) read with Section 149 (2) (a) (i) (c) of the Act, and also in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. v. Chinnamma and Ors. (supra) the alleged risk could not be saddled against the Appellant in any manner. Under the premises of the aforesaid cited case after holding the risk of Respondent No. 1 was not covered under the policy and the tractor was driven by the Respondent No. 4 without having any driving license, the Appellant could not be held liable even to pay the awarded sum to the Respondent No. 1 first and lateron, recover the same from the Respondents No. 3 & 4. In the aforesaid cited case the apex Court held as under: - 13. An insurance for an owner of the goods or his authorized representative traveling in a vehicle became compulsory only with effect from 14.11.1994, i.e., from the date of coming into force of the Amending Act 54 of 1994 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 tract was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessary is required to be used for agricultural purposes, 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 purposes of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The 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 the 'goods carriage' as contained in Section 2 (14) of Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decision of this Court in As ha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and other decisions following the same, as the incident had taken place on 24.11.1991, i.e., much prior to coming into force of 1994 amendment. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. This appeal is allowed. 16. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. This appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. It is apparent from the policy that the alleged trolley carrying by offending tractor was neither insured nor any additional premium was paid to the Appellant for covering the alleged risk involved in the case at hand. In such premises, the liability even to pay the awarded sum to the claimant and to recover the same later from the registered owner and driver, could not be saddled against the Appellant. Therefore, it is held that tractor was driven by the Respondent No. 4 contrary to the terms of the insurance policy and the risk of Respondent No. 1 traveling on the trolley was not covered under the policy. In such premises, it is further held that after exonerating the Appellant from the liability the tribunal did not have any authority to direct the Appellant to pay the awarded sum and recover the same from Respondents No. 3 & 4. In such premises, the approach of the Tribunal in this regard being perverse, is not sustainable hence, by allowing this appeal in part, the direction of the Tribunal to the Appellant that it shall pay the awarded sum first to the Respondent No. 1/claimant and then, recover the same from the Respondents No. 3 & 4, is hereby set aside. Till this extent, the impugned award is modified while, remaining findings of the same are hereby affirmed. 11. I deem fit to mention here that the Tribunal directed the Appellant to pay and recover the awarded sum from the Respondents No. 3 & 4 keeping in view the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Jugal Kishore and Anr. v. Ramlesh Devi and Ors. reported in 2003 (4) M.P.L.J. 546 , but in view of the abovementioned subsequent decision of the apex Court, the approach of the Tribunal could not be sustained under the law. 12. v. Ramlesh Devi and Ors. reported in 2003 (4) M.P.L.J. 546 , but in view of the abovementioned subsequent decision of the apex Court, the approach of the Tribunal could not be sustained under the law. 12. It is directed that, any sum of the impugned award if deposited by the Appellant in compliance of any interim award, or the other order, then the Appellant shall be at liberty to recover the same from the Respondent No. 3 & 4 by filing the execution proceedings against them on the basis of this order. It shall not be necessary for the Appellant to file any fresh claim for recovery of such sum, the Tribunal is also directed to comply this condition. 13. In the available circumstances, there shall be no order as to the costs.