JUDGEMENT Dev Darshan, J. (oral) This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi 1 awarding a sum of Rs.4,18,000/- along with interest @ 7 1/2 % per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 2. It is undisputed before me that deceased Bhola Nath died in an accident on 11.3.2004 involving tractor of respondent No.1 before the Tribunal Shri Sarvan Kumar. He was crushed under the wheel and died as a result thereof. On the settled issues, the learned Tribunal on the evidence of the parties concluded that the death of Bhola Nath occurred in the accident involving tractor No. HP-31-6205. The claim petition, though was resisted by the owner on the ground that the deceased had tried to board the tractor from the rear i.e. trolley and the accident occurred because of that fact and not because he was traveling in the tractor which was coupled with the trolley and carrying sand.It is also undisputed before me that and as has been held by the learned Tribunal that the trolley was ferrying sand. To arrive its conclusion the learned Tribunal relies upon the evidence of Pawan Kumar (PW-3), who was an independent witness and was traveling with the deceased on the tractor on the same day. It is also undisputed before me that the insurance is only for the tractor and trolley as is evident from Exhibits RB and RC which is cover note of the Insurance company placed on the record of the case. 3. The only point of law urged before me is as to whether the liability can be apportioned on respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal (Insurance Company), appellant herein. This Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Sudesh Kumari and others II (2007) ACC 386 holds: “2.Brief facts of the case are that deceased Parminder Kumar is alleged to have died as a result of accident of tractor No. HR-02A-7259. According to the claimants, Parminder Kumar was traveling on the tractor along with his goods and Rs.50 as fare was agreed to be paid to the driver of the tractor. The claim petition was filed by the parents of Parminder Kumar and was instituted in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirmour at Nahan on 6th November, 1998. Mrs. According to the claimants, Parminder Kumar was traveling on the tractor along with his goods and Rs.50 as fare was agreed to be paid to the driver of the tractor. The claim petition was filed by the parents of Parminder Kumar and was instituted in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirmour at Nahan on 6th November, 1998. Mrs. Hema Devi, widow of deceased was shown as pro forma respondent, but vide order dated 29th July, 1999 on an application for transposition having been moved by Mrs. Hema Devi, she was alleged to be arrayed as petitioner No.3.3. 456. Admittedly, the vehicle in question insured with the Insurance company was a tractor. The sitting capacity of the vehicle was only one. It was meant to be used only for agricultural purpose and not for carrying of passengers.7. A tractor is not a goods vehicle. Section 2(44) defines “tractor” as under: “ ‘Tractor’ means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry and load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); it excludes a road-roller.”8. It is, thus, clear that a tractor is not meant to carry any passenger or to carry any load. A trailer has been defined in Section 2(46) as under: “ ‘trailer’ means any vehicle, other than a semi­trailer and a side car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.”9. When a trailer is attached to the tractor, the trailer can be used for carriage of goods. However, the trailer cannot be used for carriage of passengers. The question whether the tractor becomes a goods vehicle When a trailer has been attached to it has been left open by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company . V. Chinnamma, III (2004)ACC 1 (SC)= v(2004) SLT 500=2004(8) SCC 697. The Apex Court considered these questions and held as follows: “16. 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 tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus necessarily 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 the market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of ‘goods carriage’ as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decision of this Court in Asha Rani and other decision following the same, as the accident had taken placed on 24.11.1991 i.e. much prior to coming into force of the 1994 amendment.”10. In the present case admittedly, the vehicle in question was a tractor and the insurance policy has been proved on record as Ex. RC. As per the insurance policy, the risk cover is only for the driver and not the passenger and there is no liability on the Insurance Company with regard to pay compensation to any passenger sitting on the said tractor. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot beheld liable.” ( p.387-389)4.In Oriental Insurance Company versus Brij Mohan and others,IV (2007) ACC 254 (SC) the Supreme Court following its earlier decision in Chinamma and others 2004(8) SCC 697 holds that no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. However, while disposing of Brij Mohan’s case it was directed:“13. However, respondent No.1 is a poor labourer. He had suffered grievous injuries. He had become disabled to a great extent. The amount of compensation awarded in his favour appears to be on a lower side. In the aforementioned estuation, although we reject the other contentions of Ms. However, while disposing of Brij Mohan’s case it was directed:“13. However, respondent No.1 is a poor labourer. He had suffered grievous injuries. He had become disabled to a great extent. The amount of compensation awarded in his favour appears to be on a lower side. In the aforementioned estuation, although we reject the other contentions of Ms. Indu Malhotra, we are inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to direct that the award may be satisfied by the appellant but it would be entitled to realize the same from the owner of the tractor and the trolley where for it would not be necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for recovery of the amount as provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act. “ (P.261) 5.In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed. This appeal shall abide by the direction as given by the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Brij Mohan and others. The award shall first be satisfied by the Insurance Company. Money stands deposited in this Court. In that event it will be open to the Insurance Company to recover the entire amount from the owner. Direction has been given keeping in view of the fact that in this case a poor labourer has died leaving behind his widow and other dependents. No order as to the costs. 6. All the pending applications also stands disposed of.