Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Co. with the prayer to set-aside the award dated 26/2/2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar whereby, the appellant-insurance company has been held with the other non-claimant jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- to injured-claimant/respondent No.1 Kailash Chand Sharma in a road accident involving the vehicle insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that the learned Tribunal erred in law while holding liable the appellant-insurance company for making payment of compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- jointly and severally to the claimant-respondent for the injuries sustained by him as the truck was being used as a good vehicles, whereas the passengers were also travelling in the truck and the risk of the passengers travelling therein was not covered as the policy was not an Act only Policy and no premium was charged covering risk of the passengers. That apart, driver of the offending was not having a valid license for driving the truck, which is a heavy goods vehicle. The appeal therefore be allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal be set-aside. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents des-pite service of notice upon them. Hence, the appeal is being decided on the basis of submission of the counsel for the appellant and the award. 4. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for claimant-respondent No.1-Kailash Chand Sharma before the Tribunal was that the claimant was travelling in the truck transporting the agriculture produce for selling in the market in the capacity of representative of the owner, and therefore his risk and the 'risk of agriculture produce' was covered under the policy. Therefore, the insurance company was rightly held liable to pay compensation. 5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and perusing the impugned award, I find that the insurance company failed to rebut the arguments of the claimant before the Tribunal that the claimant was travelling in the truck transporting the agriculture produce for selling agriculture produce in the market in the capacity of representative of the owner, the risk of which was covered under the policy. 6. I therefore do not find any perversity or infirmity in the impugned-award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. I therefore do not find any perversity or infirmity in the impugned-award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant-insurance company to comply with the award dated 26/2/2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar within a period of two months from the date of obtaining the certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be also endorsed to claimant-respondent No.1-Kailash Chand Sharma for his information.