RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-driver & owners assailing the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aklera, Jhalawar dated 9.10.2003 by which the appellants have been directed to pay 50% of compensation to claimant-respondents No.1 & 2. Appellant No.1 is driver of the vehicle. Accident took place involving the vehicles i.e. the tractor owned by appellants No.2 to 4 and Jeep owned by respondent No.5 Naresh Kumar. The jeep was being driven by respondent No.4 Sunil Kumar. 2. Contention of the leaned counsel for the appellants is that appellant No.1 tractor-driver could not be held negligent for the accident because admittedly the accident in this case has been taken place due to the fact that Jeep hit the Tractor-trolley behind the tractor, which was carrying certain persons in the trolley and therefore it cannot be a reason to hold the tractor driver appellant No.1 and owner appellants No.2 to 4 negligent. Learned counsel submitted that 100% responsibility for causing the accident was upon the jeep-driver and on that basis, the owner of the jeep and the insurance company with which the Jeep has been insured has rightly been held liable for making payment of compensation but The New India Insurance Co.Ltd. i.e. respondent No.3 with which the tractor of appellants No.2 to 4 was insured could not have been exonerated from its liability to indemnify the owner for payment of compensation. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in para 15 of the award is therefore perverse. Learned Tribunal has wrongly mentioned about the judgment of this Court and Supreme Court and has not specified the citation of the case on which the presiding officer sought to rely to hold that if the tractor is insured for the purpose of agriculture use, the risk of passengers travelling in the trolley was not covered. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has opposed the appeal and submitted that neither the tractor nor the trolley attached therewith is meant for carrying the passengers. Evidence in the present case proved that the tractor was being driven in a very high speed and about 100 passengers were being carried in the trolley because they all were going to attend the owner's family ceremony of 'gona' after the marriage. Evidence in the present case proved that the tractor was being driven in a very high speed and about 100 passengers were being carried in the trolley because they all were going to attend the owner's family ceremony of 'gona' after the marriage. The negligence was on the part of the tractor-driver because he was carrying so many passengers, who were travelling in the trolley putting their lives in danger. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the award, I find that the issue as to the liability of the Insurance Company has been settled by the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Serjerao : MACD 2008 (SC) 33 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan & Ors. : 2007(3) TAC 20 (SC) = RLW 2007(4) SC 3013 in which it has been clearly held by their lordships that if the insurance of the tractor is only for agriculture purpose, risk of the passengers/ labourers travelling in the trolley if they die in a road accident, would not be covered. Supreme Court in Serjerao supra while placing reliance upon its earlier judgment in Brij Mohan supra held that Insurance Company has no liability in respect of the persons travelling in trolley attached to the Tractors. 5. In view of the law aforesaid propounded by the Supreme Court, the New India Insurance Co.Ltd.-respondent No.3 with which the tractor of appellants No.2 to 4 (owner) was insured cannot be held liable to indemnify them for payment of compensation. I am inclined to uphold the finding of the Tribunal, wherein it has observed that large number of passengers could not have been permitted to travel in the trolley even if they were going to attend the family ceremony (gona) of the owner or any other person. Therefore, it must be held to be a case of composite negligence and was rightly held so by the Tribunal. 6. I do not find any infirmity with the award and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.