JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 13.6.2006 passed by MACT. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- "On 20.12.2002 at about 9.30 AM, deceased Poonam Chand, who was an agricultural labourer, was going on the tractor, being driven by Sheochand, to drop the trolley of manure into the field of Kana ram - appellant No. 2. The tractor was being driven by Sheochand at a high speed and negligently, as a result of which the tractor as well as the trolley fell down and Poonam Chand died at the spot." 3. After that the FIR was lodged. Claim petition was filed by the claimants. Notices were issued, reply was filed, issues were framed, evident was submitted and after hearing both the sides, an award of Rs. 4,15,600/- has been passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants and against the non claimants. 4. Against the said judgment and award dated 13.6.2006, this appeal has been submitted by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle challenging the liability of payment of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration that at the time of alleged accident, the deceased Poonam Chand and Manohar Lal, both were sitting on the tractor because the trolley was empty and further more this fact is substantiated by the statements of AW-1 Smt. Gheesi and AW-2 Manohar Lal. If the vehicle is used for agricultural purposes, then it is not necessary for the owner to take the separate insurance of the labourers and to pay separate premium for the agricultural purposes. The learned Tribunal has totally ignored this aspect of the case and passed the impugned award dated 13.6.2006 against the appellants and as such it deserves to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that witness AW-2 Manohar Lal was the real eye witness, who had seen the entire accident and he was sitting beside the deceased Poonam Chand on the tractor, but the learned Tribunal has given much importance to the evidence of Smt. Gheesi, AW-2 and did not give much weightage to the evidence of AW-2 Manohar Lal. Hence, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Hence, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 6. E converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apposite. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award dated 13.6.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the documentary evidence produced before it, is found to have rightly passed the judgment and award dated 13.6.2006, hence I do not think it proper to interfere in the same and the appeal filed by the appellants being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly after confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal.Appeal dismissed. *******