JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals are directed against the judgement and award dated 30.10.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short 'the tribunal' hereinafter) in three claim petitions being Claim Case Nos. 218/1999, 262/1999 and 263/1999 filed on behalf of respondent Smt. Dhapu, Smt. Mangi Bai and Smt. Heera Bai respectively, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to respondent Dhapu; compensation of Rs. 12,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to respondent-Mangi Bai and; compensation of Rs. 14,000/- along with interest at the rate 9% per annum to respondent - Heera Bai from the date of filing of the claim petitions. 2. The above named respondents filed the claim petitions in relation to an accident took place on 11.02.1999 at 5:00 PM. in Jawad village of Kankroli. The respondent- claimants have alleged that they were travelling in trolly No. RJ27/3480 attached to the tractor No. HR 20/A-9684 and the same turned turtle on account of rash and negligent driving by Mangi Lal driver of the said tractor, in which they received injuries. 3. Before the tribunal, the insurance company filed a reply and alleged that the tractor No. HR20/A-9684, to which trolly insured with the insurance company was attached, was not insured with it and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The insurance company has also claimed that the respondent claimants were not travelling in the tractor as labourers but were travelling as passenger for which the insurance company did not receive any premium and, therefore, also, the insurance company is not entitled to pay any ompensation. Another objection was raised by the insurance company to the effect that at the time of accident, the driver of the tractor was not holding any valid licence and the owner of the trolly did not inform the insurance company about the accident, therefore, condition of the policy has been violated. 4. It is noticed that the insurance company, in support of its defence, neither produced any witness nor any documentary evidence. The tribunal, after taking into consideration the statements of AW. 1 Smt. Dhapu Bai, AW. 2 Smt. Shankari, AW. 3 Heera Bai, PW. 4. It is noticed that the insurance company, in support of its defence, neither produced any witness nor any documentary evidence. The tribunal, after taking into consideration the statements of AW. 1 Smt. Dhapu Bai, AW. 2 Smt. Shankari, AW. 3 Heera Bai, PW. 4 Mangi Bai and Exhibits 1 to 22 produced by respondent-claimants, has held that the accident in which the respondent-claimants received injuries took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor No. HR 20/A-9684 to which the trolly No. RJ27/3480 insured with the insurance company was attached. The tribunal has also taken into consideration the objections raised by the insurance company in reply to the claim petitions, however, rejected the same while observing that the tractor, to which the trolly No. RJ27/3480 was attached, was not insured with the insurance company but the trolly in which the respondent- claimants were travelling was insured with the insurance company and the said trolly comes within the definition of "motor vehicle" as defined in sub-section (28) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the defence of the insurance company to the effect that since the tractor, to which the trolly was attached, was not insured with it and the insurance company cannot be held liable, cannot be accepted. 5. In respect to other objections of the insurance company that no premium for the passengers travelling in the trolly had been received and the driver was not holding any valid licence on the day of the accident as already noticed, no evidence has been produced by the insurance company in its defence and, therefore, the tribunal has not considered the said objections. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company has assailed the impugned award only on one ground that the tractor, to which the trolly No. RJ27/3480 attached with it, was not insured with the appellant-insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 7. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company has assailed the impugned award only on one ground that the tractor, to which the trolly No. RJ27/3480 attached with it, was not insured with the appellant-insurance company, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and found that the same has no force and the tribunal has rightly held that as per the definition of "motor vehicle" provided under sub-section (28) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the trolly insured with the appellant-insurance company comes within the definition of "motor vehicle" and, therefore, the tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the said objection of the appellant-insurance company. No other point was raised by the counsel for the appellant. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, these appeals being devoid of merits, are dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******