JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is preferred by the Insurance Company with a prayer to quash the judgment dated 06.08.2009, passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi), 3rd Additional District Judge, Vadodarat at Chota Udaipur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 894 of 1992, whereby the Appellant Insurance Company is jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs. 1,27,000/- as compensation to respondent No. 1 for the death of hear minor daughter in vehicular accident. 2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 25.01.1992, at about 18.00 hours in the evening, the deceased minor was traveling in the Trailer bearing registration No. GJ.6.T.7953 attached to Tractor bearing registration No. GJ.G.A.8662. It was the case of the respondent No. 1 that because of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the driver - respondent No. 2, the deceased minor fell down from the trailer and suffered fatal injuries. The respondent No. 1, therefore, filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 894 of 1992 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Vadodara, to claim compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act against the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal by impugned and award directed the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pay to the respondent No. 1 jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of claim petition till realization for the death of minor child. 3. The Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award has preferred present appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Krishnan M. Ghavariya, learned advocate for Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. V.D. Pargi, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 5. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant submits that accident has occurred in the year 1992 and in view of the amendment in Motor Vehicle Act in 1994 and also in view of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Asha Rani and Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 and in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Asha Rani and Others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223 and in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus V. chinnamma and Others, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 697 and also in judgments passed by this Court in case also in case of United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Versus Gulabsinh Pratapsinh Vasava passed in First Appeal No. 4894 of 2008 with 4895 of 2008 decided on 03.07.2015 and in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Kashiben Gamansinh Chauhan passed in First Appeal No. 282 of 2008 decided on 23.11.2015, it is observed that trailer comes within definition of goods vehicle, and therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability paying awarded compensation on the appellant Insurance Company. He therefore, urges that the impugned judgment and order requires to be quashed and set aside and the Insurance Company may be exonerated. 6. Mr. Krishnan M. Ghavariya, learned advocate for Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 submitted that Insurance Company had not taken contention of the Tractor being transported vehicle in the written-statement. He therefore, submitted that the Tribunal in Paragraph No. 9 concluded that the appellant had not taken any specific pleading in the written-statement that the minor deceased was an unauthorized passenger. He, therefore, urges that the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 7. Mr. V.D. Pargi, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has adopted the arguments of Mr. Krishnan M. Ghavariya, learned advocate for Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1. 8. There is no dispute that unfortunate accident took place on 25.01.1992 before the amendment came to be inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act in 1994. 9. Learned advocate for the parties are not at conflicted to the extend that the deceased was traveling in the trailer which was attached to a Tractor. It further emerges from the record that he deceased was minor, aged about 8 years at the time of accident, who fell down from the Trailer and suffered fatal injuries. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the minor deceased fell down from the Tractor due to negligence on the part of the respondent No. 2-Driver of the offending Tractor. This finding of the Tribunal is not subject matter of challenge in this appeal. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the minor deceased fell down from the Tractor due to negligence on the part of the respondent No. 2-Driver of the offending Tractor. This finding of the Tribunal is not subject matter of challenge in this appeal. Therefore, what requires consideration is whether Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability of making the payment of compensation to the respondent No. 1, as admittedly the trolley in which the minor deceased was traveling was a goods vehicle covered within the definition as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicle Act. 10. In case of V. Chinnamma (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that as under in Paragraph No. 16:- "16. A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of the "goods carriage" as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decisions of this Court in Asha Rani (supra) and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991, i.e., much prior to coming into force of 1994 amendment." 11. This Court in case of United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Versus Gulabsinh Pratapsinh Vasava passed in First Appeal No. 4894 of 2008 with 4895 of 2008 decided on 03.07.2015 and in case of United India Insurance Co. This Court in case of United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Versus Gulabsinh Pratapsinh Vasava passed in First Appeal No. 4894 of 2008 with 4895 of 2008 decided on 03.07.2015 and in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Kashiben Gamansinh Chauhan passed in First Appeal No. 282 of 2008 decided on 23.11.2015, has held that Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation, if the victim is traveling in a trailer attached to the Tractor. 12. In view of admitted position that minor deceased was traveling in a Tractor attached with Tractor and Tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purpose unless registered, other wise, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. In present case, there is no evidence on record to show that offending trailer was registered, otherwise, then for the agricultural purposes. I am, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability of payment of compensation on the Insurance Company along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and award dated 02.08.2009, passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi), 3rd Additional District Judge, Vadodarat at Chota Udaipur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 894 of 1992, is hereby quashed and set aside qua this appellant Insurance Company. As a consequence the appellate Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation in terms of impugned judgment and award. 14. By virtue of order dated 16.08.2010, passed by this Court in this appeal, the amount deposited by the Insurance Company to satisfy the impugned award is invested in FD Account in a nationalized bank. The respondent No. 1 was permitted to withdraw period interest accruing on the fixed deposit. 15. In view of present judgment, the Tribunal is directed to refund the amount of compensation to the Appellant - Insurance Company. The sum of Rs. 25,000/-, if deposited by the Appellant-Insurance Company in the Registry of this Court, if so far not transmitted to the Tribunal is ordered to be returned to the Appellant-Insurance Company. It is made clear that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover the awarded compensation from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the driver and owner, respectively of the offending vehicle. The Registry to transmit the Record and Proceedings to the Trial Court forthwith. It is made clear that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to recover the awarded compensation from the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the driver and owner, respectively of the offending vehicle. The Registry to transmit the Record and Proceedings to the Trial Court forthwith. With the aforesaid observation and direction, present petition stands disposed of.