JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned Counsel for the appellants/claimants and Mr. D.S. Nimla, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 New India Assurance Company. Also heard the learned Counsels Mr. Jagdish Vyas, Mr. Anil Bachhawat and Mr. Vinay Kothari representing different Insurance Companies. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and award dated 13.3,2007 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Motor' Accident Claim Case No. 77/2004 (30/2003) whereby the learned Tribunal partly accepted the claim application filed by the claimants being the legal heirs/representatives of late Smt. Kamla and awarded them compensation of Rs. 2,76,800/-. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle were held responsible and the respondent No. 4 Insurance Company was exonerated of the responsibility to satisfy the award. The appellants have come in appeal seeking. enhancement in the award as well as for the reversal of the finding whereby the Insurance Company was exonerated from liability. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants/claimants being the legal heirs/representatives of late Smt. Kamla filed a claim application under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in relation to the death of Smt. Kamla in a road accident. It was averred in the claim application that the deceased was engaged as a labourer on the tractor No. RJ-06/R-8544 and on 21.11.2002, she was going the tractor to the Banas river for loading sand in the trolley. On Bhilwara Chittorgarh Bypass, when the tractor passed from a small culvert, the driver Bhola Ram drove the same rashly and negligently and failed to avoid a pit on the road, as a result whereof, Smt. Kamla was thrown off the tractor and was crushed order its rear wheel. She received serious injuries and was taken to the Hospital where she expired while undergoing treatment. It was claimed that the deceased was a healthy working woman and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month with which she used to sustain her family. At the time of accident, Bhola Ram was driving the tractor. The tractor was owned jointly by Babugiri, Jeewangiri and Devigiri id was insured by the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 4. It was claimed that the deceased was a healthy working woman and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month with which she used to sustain her family. At the time of accident, Bhola Ram was driving the tractor. The tractor was owned jointly by Babugiri, Jeewangiri and Devigiri id was insured by the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 4. The Insurance Company filed a written statement to the claim application id took a stand that the tractor was insured only for agriculture purposes. No premium was charged by the Insurance Company for carrying passengers on the tractor and as such, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the ward. 5. The learned Tribunal framed the usual issues for consideration. One of the issues was as to whether the deceased was sitting in the tractor as a gratuitous passenger and if so, whether the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the award. After examining the issue in detail, it was held by the Tribunal that the deceased was a labourer and was travelling in the tractor as a gratuitous passenger. The tractor was insured by the Insurance Company only for agriculture purposes. No premium was charged for carrying any passenger on the tractor and is such, the Insurance Company was not liable to satisfy the award. Accordingly, he Insurance Company was totally exonerated of the liability to satisfy the award. The other respondents i.e. driver and the joint owners were held jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. It is against the said finding of the exoneration of the Insurance Company and seeking enhancement in the award that the appellants/claimants have filed the instant appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the deceased was travelling as a labourer in the tractor. The insurance policy bears a condition entailing the liability of the Insurance Company towards third parties which includes the damage caused 'to the labourers by the use of the vehicle while loading and unloading thereof. As per him, the premium of Rs. 317/- was charged for covering the risk of one passenger. He further submitted that the policy issued n this case is a B-policy i.e. a comprehensive insurance policy and, therefore, even the passenger travelling in the tractor would be entitled to have his/her risk covered under the insurance contract. As per him, the premium of Rs. 317/- was charged for covering the risk of one passenger. He further submitted that the policy issued n this case is a B-policy i.e. a comprehensive insurance policy and, therefore, even the passenger travelling in the tractor would be entitled to have his/her risk covered under the insurance contract. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 484 and urged that the impugned judgment whereby the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from the responsibility to satisfy the award be quashed and the Insurance Company be directed to indemnify the award. 7. Per contra, Mr. D.S. Nimla, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 insurance Company and the learned Counsels Mr. jagdish Vyas, Mr. Anil Bachhawat and Mr. Vinay Kothari representing different Insurance Companies, who were invited to address the Court on the issue, contended that the arguments advanced regarding the premium of Rs. 317/- having been collected by the Insurance Company for carrying passengers in the tractor is misconceived. They demonstrated by presenting the schedule of payment before this Court and urged that the premium of Rs. 317/- was charged for the trolley attached to the tractor. Though the policy issued in the case is a B-type policy i.e. comprehensive insurance policy, yet it would not cover the liability of the gratuitous or fare paying passengers travelling in the tractor. They urged that even in the case of Cholleti Bharatamma relied upon by the appellant's Counsel, the Hon'ble Apex Court repelled the plea that the Insurance Company should be held liable to indemnify the loss caused to a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, They further relied on the judgments rendered in the cases of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 607 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 and vehemently contended that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment cum award whereby the Insurance Company was exonerated of the liability to indemnify the award. 8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record. 9. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 and vehemently contended that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment cum award whereby the Insurance Company was exonerated of the liability to indemnify the award. 8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the impugned judgment as well as the record. 9. Before dealing with the issue regarding the liability of the Insurance Company, this Court has to consider the facts as set out in the claim application and the evidence led before the Tribunal. The facts as stated reveal that the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. The tractor lurched while passing over a pot hole on the road whereupon the deceased was thrown off and was crushed under the rear wheel of the tractor. A tractor is a vehicle intended only for seating the driver and is not meant for carrying passengers. That is why the insurance policy Ex.D-1 specifically refers to the premium of Rs. 15/- having been collected for the driver. The built and design of the tractor is such that no seat is provided for anybody other than the driver. Thus, it is apparent that the deceased invited trouble for herself by sitting on the mudguard of the tractor. The contributory negligence of the deceased herself is thus writ large on the face of the record. That apart, the driver who was driving the tractor under the instructions of the owner was also under an obligation to deny permission to the deceased when she seated herself on the mudguard of the tractor. By not doing so and driving the tractor despite the deceased being perched in such a precarious position on the tractor, he also acted rashly and negligently. Thus, even if it is held that the insurance policy covers the passengers, then too, the Insurance Company would be entitled to exoneration on the point of negligence. 10. Now coming to the direction given by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability to indemnify the award. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of judgments, some of which have been cited above, has in no unequivocal terms held that the term third party as mentioned in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not cover a gratuitous passenger. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of judgments, some of which have been cited above, has in no unequivocal terms held that the term third party as mentioned in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not cover a gratuitous passenger. Even in the case of Cholleti Bharatamma (supra) on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the Hon'ble Apex Court repelled the plea that the risk of a gratuitous passenger travelling in the goods vehicle would be covered by the insurance policy. The reason is apparent. When we go through the insurance policy in the case at hand, it is apparent that the premium which was collected by the Insurance Company for insuring the vehicle was limited to the damage to the tractor, trolley, goods being carried therein, the driver and third parties. The liability under the insurance policy is a contractual liability and, therefore, as no premium was collected by the Insurance Company for covering the risk of the passengers travelling in the tractor, it would not he liable to indemnify the loss caused to the life or limb of a gratuitous or even a fare paying passenger. 12. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has not hesitation in holding that the Tribunal committed no error, illegality or perversity in iterating the Insurance Company from the burden of indemnifying the award. 13. Now coming to the prayer made for enhancement in the award. In the inion of this Court, the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the Lord, assessed and awarded just compensation to the claimants which in the inion of this Court, does not call for any enhancement. 14. Accordingly, the appeal being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs.I Record of the learned Tribunal be sent forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******