Judgment Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. The award dated 10.09.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C.P. No. 03 of 2006, has been assailed by the Insurance Company. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the accident took place while the tractor, attached with a trolley, was being used for carrying the stones at the relevant time. Obviously, the tractor or trolley can only be used for agricultural purpose and not for carrying the stones. There was no insurance for the trolley so attached with the tractor. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon two precedents of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The first one is “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan & others, AIR 2007 Supreme Court 1971, wherein an injured, being labourer, slipped down from the trolley attached to a tractor and there was no insurance cover of the trolley. The tractor was insured only for carrying out agricultural work which would not include digging of earth and taking it in trolley to brick kiln. The injured was mere passenger and not owner or driver, so his claim petition could not have been allowed. However, considering that he was a poor labourer and had become disabled, the Apex Court directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award with the right to realize the same from the owner of tractor and trolley. 4. Another case, which was relied upon by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, is of “United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Serjerao and others, AIR 2008 Supreme Court 460.” 5. I have gone through the above two precedents and find that none of them is applicable to the present controversy because in both the precedents, as cited above, the accident took place while the labourer either slipped from the running trolley or was sitting in the trolley, whereas in the present case, the tractor was standstill at the railway crossing and just soon after opening of the crossing, the deceased strived to take ride on the mudguard of the tractor from in-front and the driver of the same, without taking care of the eventuality, geared up the vehicle to move ahead. So, this was, obviously, an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The trolley is not, at all, involved in the present controversy. So, this was, obviously, an accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The trolley is not, at all, involved in the present controversy. The tractor was not in a running state at the time of incident. 6. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, use of the tractor for carrying stones is also immaterial. Therefore, the Court finds no good reason to interfere with the judgment delivered by the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby, dismissed. 7. Money shall be released in favour of the claimants alongwith the interest, earned thereon, till the date of its payment.