Order P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. The instant Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act"), against the Award dated 7.7.2008 passed by 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bilaspur (for short, "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 23/2008, whereby the liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the Appellants. The Appellants are the driver and owners respectively of the tractor-trolley involved in the accident, bearing Registration No. CG10-D/1474 (Tractor) and CG10-A/1484 (Trolley). Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the Claimants being the wife and children of Vinod Kumar Loniya (the deceased). Respondent No. 4-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., was the insurer of the said Tractor-Trolley at the relevant point of time. Respondents Nos. 5 to 13 are mother, father, brothers and sisters respectively of the deceased Vinod Kumar Loniya. 2. Facts leading to the filing of the instant Appeal are that Respondents Nos. 1 to 3/Claimants had filed a claim application under Section 163-A of the Act before the Tribunal seeking for compensation for the accidental death of the deceased. The contention of the Claimants was that on 12.9.2007, Vinod Kumar Loniya was travelling in a tractor-trolley belonging to Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 (Jaleshwar Kaushik and Chandra Kumar Kaushik) of which the Appellant No. 1 (Rameshwar Kaushik) was the driver and that when the said Tractor reached near Kabir Mandir at Village Parsada (Bharni), Vinod Kumar Loniya fell down and came beneath the wheels of the said tractor-trolley resulting in sustaining of grievous injuries to Vinod Kumar Loniya who later succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. The Claimants contended that the deceased was engaged as a labour in the said tractor-trolley owned by Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and was earning an amount of about Rs. 100-125/- per day. On account of the death of the deceased, the Claimants had claimed an amount of Rs. 11,80,000/- as compensation from the driver (Appellant No. 1), owners (Appellants Nos. 2 & 3) and the insurer (Respondent No. 4) of the said tractor-trolley. 3. 2 and 3 and was earning an amount of about Rs. 100-125/- per day. On account of the death of the deceased, the Claimants had claimed an amount of Rs. 11,80,000/- as compensation from the driver (Appellant No. 1), owners (Appellants Nos. 2 & 3) and the insurer (Respondent No. 4) of the said tractor-trolley. 3. The Appellants (driver and owners of the offending tractor-trolley) entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed their Written Statement denying the claim of the Claimants and in their Written Statement they attributed the cause of accident upon the deceased himself stating that the deceased without intimating the driver jumped from the moving tractor-trolley and came beneath the wheels of the said tractor-trolley resulting in grievous injuries and subsequent death. The Appellants in addition to denying the contentions, further alleged that if at all if the Appellants are liable for making any payment, since the vehicle belonging to the Appellants was insured with Respondent No. 4-Insurance Company therefore the liability of payment of compensation should be saddled upon the insurer of the vehicle, i.e., Respondent No. 4. 4. Respondent No. 4 - Insurance Company entering appearance before the Tribunal submitted their response denying their liability for payment of compensation firstly on the ground that Appellant No. 1 (driver of the vehicle) was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and as such there was a breach of policy conditions. Secondly, there was a breach of policy conditions by the Appellants to the extent that the tractor-trolley was insured for agricultural works but at the time of accident the tractor-trolley was being used for non-agricultural works. Further, it was also contended by Respondent No. 4-Insurance Company that there were other 4-5 persons, also in the Tractor-Trolley. The Insurance Company had further contended that the vehicle was insured to the extent of any damage caused to a third-party and also the risk of the driver and that the deceased was not the third-party but was travelling in the said tractor-trolley in the capacity of a labour for whom there was no premium paid by the Appellants covering the risk of a labour in the tractor-trolley. As such for all the above made reasons and also keeping in view the policy issued, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation. 5. Respondents Nos. As such for all the above made reasons and also keeping in view the policy issued, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation. 5. Respondents Nos. 5 to 13 also entered appearance before the Tribunal and pleaded that they too were the dependents of the deceased and therefore they are also entitled for receiving compensation. In addition, they had also filed a claim application which was treated as a counter-claim while considering the case of the Claimants. 6. After completion of the pleadings and recording of the evidences, the Tribunal framed about 6 issues of which the relevant issues for deciding the instant Appeal are: "03. Whether the vehicle involved in the accident in question was being driven in breach of the policy conditions? 04. Whether Non-applicants Nos. 5 to 13 were dependent upon the deceased Vinod? 05. Whether the Claimants and Non-applicants Nos. 5 to 13 are entitled for receiving compensation, if yes, then who and to what extent and under which head?" 7. So far as the evidence which has come before the Tribunal, Claimant No. 1 - Smt. Pramila Bai Loniya, widow of the deceased, was examined as PW-1 and she has stated before the Tribunal about the accident in which she lost her husband on 20.9.2007. She stated that the deceased was working as a labour in the said tractor-trolley belonging to Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 and that in the course of employment her husband received grievous injuries and he was taken to the CIMS, Bilaspur where in the course of treatment he succumbed to the injuries. 8. In addition, one Deenu Kaiwart was also examined before the Tribunal as PW-2 wherein he stated that he was an eye-witness to-the accident in as much as he was travelling along with the deceased and also one Dinesh Sahu in the said tractor-trolley in the capacity of a labour where they had gone to load muroom which was being taken to the field of Appellant No. 2. According to the statement of Deenu Kaiwart (PW-2) when they had reached near Kabir Mandir at Village Parsada (Bharni) because of the rash and negligent driving of Appellant No. 1, the tractor-trolley was greatly shakened and in the course the deceased lost his control and fell down from the tractor-trolley and came beneath the wheels of the said tractor-trolley. 9. According to the statement of Deenu Kaiwart (PW-2) when they had reached near Kabir Mandir at Village Parsada (Bharni) because of the rash and negligent driving of Appellant No. 1, the tractor-trolley was greatly shakened and in the course the deceased lost his control and fell down from the tractor-trolley and came beneath the wheels of the said tractor-trolley. 9. There-was not much which could be extracted from the cross-examination of these two witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) which establishes the facts about the accident, the death of the deceased and also the fact that the accident arose out of the negligence of Appellant No. 1, the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. 10. 5-NAW-1 Ahilya Bai, who also happens to be the mother of the deceased, has also deposed before the Tribunal that her son was travelling in the said tractor-trolley and in the course of his employment he fell down and came beneath the said tractor-trolley which resulted in his death. 11. On behalf of the Insurance Company, 4-NAW-1 Arvind Xalxo gave his evidence and deposed before the Tribunal stating that in the policy pertaining to the offending vehicle, Exhibits NA-3 and 5, the premium paid was for covering the risk of the driver and that there was no extra premium paid for any of the labours there being carried on the said tractor-trolley. The said witness also deposed that the tractor-trolley at the relevant point of time was being used for non-agricultural purposes and thus there is a clear breach of policy conditions on the part of the Appellants and therefore on these two grounds the liability cannot be fastened upon the Insurance Company for payment of compensation. 12. Based upon the said evidence which had come before the Tribunal, the Tribunal passed the impugned Award, dated 7.7.2008 holding that the Claimants as well as Non-applicant No. 5 (mother of the deceased) are entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2,68,700/- to be paid jointly and severally by Appellants Nos. 1 to 3 (driver and owners of the offending vehicle) and at the same time the Tribunal also held that Non-applicant No. 4 (Insurance Company) is discharged from its liability to pay the amount of compensation and also so far as the claim of Non-applicants Nos. 6 to 13 (father, brothers and sisters of the deceased) their claim was rejected by the Tribunal. 6 to 13 (father, brothers and sisters of the deceased) their claim was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal further held that Claimant No. 1 - Smt. Pramila Bai, widow of the deceased, shall be receiving Rs. 5000/- towards loss of consortium and the remaining amount shall be jointly and equally distributed between the Claimants as well as Non-applicant No. 5. 13. It is this Award dated 7.7.2008 which is under challenged in the instant Appeal. 14. The present Appeal preferred by the Appellants who are the driver' and owners of the offending vehicle questioning the impugned Award mainly on three counts. Firstly, the Insurance Company has been wrongly discharged of their liability when the offending vehicle i.e. tractor-trolley belonging to Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 was duly insured with Respondent No. 4-Insurance Company. Secondly, the Tribunal erred in as much as not considering the deceased to be a third-party for fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. Thirdly, the accident in question occurred because of the willful and negligent act on the part of the deceased in jumping from the moving tractor-trolley resulting in the accident. Though in the Appeal the Appellants have questioned the quantum of compensation awarded, but it was not pressed during the course of hearing by the Counsel for the Appellants. In respect of his contentions, counsel for the Appellants submitted that from the evidence of 1-NAW-1 Rameshwar Kaushik it is established that the accident occurred because of the act on the part of the deceased in jumping from a moving tractor-trolley resulting in the accident and therefore for a willful act negligently done knowing fully well the consequences if the deceased has sustained injuries which later on became fatal the Appellants cannot be held responsible for the accident and the Appellants cannot be fastened with the liability of indemnifying the payment of compensation for such an act. 15. Counsel for the Appellants refers to the FIR reported in this case to the concerned police authorities on the date of accident by the father of the deceased which has been marked as Exhibit A-2 and A-3. Based on the said FIR as well as the statement of 1-NAW-1 Rameshwar Kaushik, counsel for the Appellants insisted that under the given set of facts the present Appellants cannot be held responsible for the accident or for the payment of compensation. Based on the said FIR as well as the statement of 1-NAW-1 Rameshwar Kaushik, counsel for the Appellants insisted that under the given set of facts the present Appellants cannot be held responsible for the accident or for the payment of compensation. It was further argued by the counsel for the Appellants that the Award of the Tribunal in exonerating the Insurance Company of its liability of payment of compensation is bad in law for the reason that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that it is a case where the deceased sustained injuries after he had fallen on the ground Upon his jumping from the tractor-trolley and the moment he had jumped from the tractor-trolley and had fallen on the ground he became a third-party for all practical purposes, for which the liability ought to have been fastened upon Respondent No. 4 - Insurance Company. According to the Appellants, the moment the deceased left the contact of the tractor in whatever manner, the fact remains that he is no longer an occupant or a passenger of the tractor and the accident arose because of the fact that he came beneath the wheels of the tractor-trolley after having fallen down and the moment he had touched the ground he loses his status of an occupant of the tractor-trolley and would therefore fall within the ambit and purview of a third-party upon which the liability of the Insurance Company would had been attracted. Further, it was also contended by the counsel for the Appellants that the vehicle involved in the case was insured under the Kisan Package Policy and therefore the policy also indemnifies the loss and damage caused to a third-party. Counsel for the Appellants in support of his contentions has relied upon certain judgments rendered by various High Courts: A. Subramani Vs. Mani & others, 1990 (1) ACJ 37, Thoznilalar Transport Company Vs. Valliammal & others, 1990 (1) ACJ 201, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi & others, 1991 (2) ACJ 991 , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Edward D'Cruz Rodrigues & others, 1995 (2) ACJ 1106 and Kanwar Shamsher Singh & others Vs. Satbir Singh & others, 2006 (2) ACJ 789. 16. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. Valliammal & others, 1990 (1) ACJ 201, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi & others, 1991 (2) ACJ 991 , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Edward D'Cruz Rodrigues & others, 1995 (2) ACJ 1106 and Kanwar Shamsher Singh & others Vs. Satbir Singh & others, 2006 (2) ACJ 789. 16. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, i.e., the Claimants, submits that the instant Appeal does not have any merits warranting interference, and the Tribunal has already taken due care of all the contentions in the instant Appeal and the Tribunal has discussed these issues and decided the case in accordance with the evidence which has come on record and accordingly prayed for the rejection of the Appeal with a further request that the Claimants may have the advantage of reaping the Award of the Tribunal at the earliest, particularly, keeping in view the fact that it is a case where the accident took place 7 years ago and the Claimants have been denied and deprived of their rightful claim all these period and have been put to great difficulty in sustaining themselves coupled with the loss of the sole earning member of the family, i.e., the deceased. However, the Counsel for the" Claimants submitted that they have preferred an Appeal, i.e., M.A.(C) No. 15/2009, wherein they want the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company also and also have challenged the granting of compensation to Respondent No. 5 i.e. the mother of deceased. 17. On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent No. 4-Insuranpe Company has supported the impugned Award. 18. Having considered the rival contentions put forth by the Counsel appearing for parties and on appreciating the contentions put forth by the Appellants, the first issue which according to this Court is more relevant to be decided first is as to whether the accident arose because, of the willful act on the part of the deceased. A perusal of the evidence and the record would reveal that the Appellants have solely relied upon the contentions of 1-NAW-1 Rameshwar Kaushik, who was the driver of the tractor-trolley at the time of accident, and also the FIR recorded by the father of the deceased. But, if we consider the cross-examination of the said 1-NAW-1 Rameshwar Kaushik, the said witness (1-NAW-1) in his cross-examination in very categorical terms stated that. But, if we consider the cross-examination of the said 1-NAW-1 Rameshwar Kaushik, the said witness (1-NAW-1) in his cross-examination in very categorical terms stated that. This statement of the person who was driving ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd eSa VSªDVj pykrs le; lkeus ns[k jgk FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd fouksn VªSDVj ls dSls fxjk Fkk] bls eSa ugha ns[kk FkkA** the tractor-trolley at the relevant point of time itself establishes the fact that there is no proof produced before the Tribunal to substantiate the contentions of the Appellants that the accident arose because of the deceased jumping from the tractor-trolley. Without a cogent evidence in this regard the submissions of the Appellants is hard to believe and is accordingly rejected. 19. The opinion of this Court also stands fortified from the evidence of PW-2 Deenu Kaiwart who in his deposition has accepted the fact that the accident arose because of the negligent driving of Appellant No. 1, Rameshwar Kaushik, resulting in dis-balancing of the tractor-trolley on account of which the deceased fell down and came beneath the tractor-trolley. Deposition of PW-2 Deenu Kaiwart is more trustworthy for the reason that he was one of the co-passengers accompanying the deceased at the time of accident and the Appellants having not been able to extract anything from his cross-examination so as to hold that the deposition of this witness is not trustworthy or not worth believing, the statement of PW-2 Deenu Kaiwart has to be accepted. 20. Further, the contents of the FIR cannot be taken note of for the reasons that the FIR has been lodged by the father of the deceased who had not witnessed the accident but has made a statement on the basis of information that he had received. On this count, the contentions of the Appellants of the accident resulting because of the willful act of the deceased being not proved and established. 21. So far as the second issue raised by the Appellants of the Tribunal having erred in not considering the deceased to be a third-party, if we take into consideration the judgments cited by the Appellants undoubtedly all those judgments pertains to a, common fact that the accident in all the said case:, arose while the respective passengers were alighting from the vehicle. The judgments so relied upon by the Appellants in the instant factual matrix of the case, in the opinion of this Court would not come to the rescue and aid of the Appellants for the simple reason of there being no cogent and strong evidence whatsoever proving the fact that the accident did not take place because of the negligent act on the part of Appellant No. 1, driver of the offending tractor-trolley. The evidence of the driver of the tractor-trolley is of no consequence, particularly, when he himself in his deposition has narrated admitting the fact that he has not seen how the accident arose and if that be so his version of the accident arising because of the deceased jumping from the tractor-trolley cannot be believed and for the said reason the contents stated in the FIR also cannot be accepted to be true as there is no evidence before the Tribunal substantiating these facts. In the absence of there being any evidence by which it could be said that the accident arose while the deceased was trying to alight from the tractor-trolley or the accident arose while the deceased jumped from the tractor-trolley, the judgments cited by the Appellants are quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case and cannot be taken into consideration for considering the deceased to be a third-party thereby making the Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation. 22. Further, so far as the insurance policy which has been taken by the Appellants it would reflect that though the Appellants had taken Kisan Package Policy, Exhibit NA-3 and NA-5, would show that the risk covered through the said policy was only that of the driver and the owner and in addition to this the Appellants have not paid any extra premium so as to cover any third person or for that matter even the other occupants in the tractor-trolley by which the liability could be fastened upon the Insurance Company. 23. It is settled position of law that unless the insurance policy covers the risk of an occupant or for that matter the injury sustained by gratuitous passenger, the insurance company would not owe the liability of any compensation payable to such category of persons unless premium in this regard is paid. 24. In one of the recent decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 24. In one of the recent decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tilak Singh and Others, 2006 (4) SCC 404 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relying upon an earlier decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Ran, 2003 (2) SCC 223 held that although the observations made in Asha Rani case were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle also. Thus, we must uphold the contention of the appellant Insurance Company that it owed no liability towards the injuries suffered by the deceased, as the insurance' policy was a statutory policy, and hence it did not cover the risk of death of or body injury to a gratuitous passenger. 25. Unless the owner of the vehicle has taken specific policy having paid the premium covering the risk of a third-party as well as the occupant, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation for any persons belonging to such category. The Insurance Company cannot be fastened with a liability for indemnifying those persons who are not covered under the policy. The contract of insurance must be taken by the owner of the vehicle in regard to the coverage of the risk of the category of the persons he intends to insure. This is imperative in nature. The insurance policy and the premium paid must be read and understood in the context with the terms and conditions of the policy if the Insurance Company has not insured the liability of death or bodily injury of the person other than the owner and the driver, which-clearly means that there is no contract of insurance by the Insurance Company covering the risk of any person other than the owner and the driver. 26. Recently, this High Court again in a matter decided on 12.3.2014 in the case of Sarju Prasad @ Nandu and another Vs. Radhelal Suryavanshi and others relying upon the judgment of Asha Rani, 2002 (2) SCC 223 (supra) has held that: "10. From the pleadings of the claimants and statements of their witnesses, it is apparent that at the time of accident, the deceased was travelling in the truck by standing in its dumper as a gratuitous passenger. Radhelal Suryavanshi and others relying upon the judgment of Asha Rani, 2002 (2) SCC 223 (supra) has held that: "10. From the pleadings of the claimants and statements of their witnesses, it is apparent that at the time of accident, the deceased was travelling in the truck by standing in its dumper as a gratuitous passenger. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the insurance company, it is clear that the insurance company had not taken any premium for covering the risk of such passengers. Thus, considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal was fully justified in exonerating the insurance company of its liability and fastening the same upon-the appellants/driver and owner of the vehicle." 27. In the opinion of this Court, Respondent No. 4-Insurance Company has lead sufficient evidence before the Tribunal to prove and establish the fact that in fact the present Appellants had taken a policy only covering the risk of the owner and the driver of the vehicle and not of any other third person. Therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal to the extent of exonerating the Respondent No. 4-Insurance Company of its liability in payment of compensation was proper, legal and justified and that no strong substance and materials have been made available by the Appellants to take a different view. Accordingly, the instant Appeal being devoid of merits the same deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.