JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 24.07.2014, passed by the learned District Judge-I-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palamau at Daltonganj, in M.V. Claim Case No. 01 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.2,09,723/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of claim application till final realization of the compensation amount, in favour of the applicant-Ravi Kumar, and the same was to be paid by the Insurance Co. 3. Facts of the case before the Claims Tribunal in brief was that on 14.05.2009, the applicant-Ravi Kumar was returning from village Kabara Kalan to his village Chaukari by a Tractor bearing Reg. No. JH-09K-5079 and at about 02:50 p.m., when he reached at Kabara Kalan Road, P.S. Haidarnagar, Dist. Palamu, he fell down from the said Tractor due to rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the said vehicle and resultantly, his right leg was crushed by the said vehicle. Thereafter, he was referred to the nearby hospital where in course of treatment his leg was amputated for saving his life. The incident was reported to the Haidarnagar P.S. where a case bearing Haidarnagar P.S. Case No. 23 of 2009 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant- Ravi Kumar thereafter filed compensation case bearing M.V. Claim Case No. 01 of 2011 before the Court below, in which notices were issued to the opposite parties. Upon receipt of the notices, Opposite Parties appeared before the Court below and filed their respective written statements. Opposite Party No. 1, who was Owner of the offending vehicle, contended that he was not involved in the present claim case and was made party only because he was the Owner of the Tractor in question. He further contended that at the time of said incident, the Tractor in question was fully insured with the Opposite Party No. 3, Insurance Co. and as such, he could not be made liable to pay compensation. The Opposite Party No. 2, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, pleaded that he is innocent and he was driving the vehicle with utmost care, rather, the applicant got injured due to his own carelessness. The Opposite Party No. 3, New India Assurance Co. and as such, he could not be made liable to pay compensation. The Opposite Party No. 2, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, pleaded that he is innocent and he was driving the vehicle with utmost care, rather, the applicant got injured due to his own carelessness. The Opposite Party No. 3, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., challenged the maintainability of the claim case contending therein that no cause of action arose with the applicant. It is further contended by the opposite party No. 3 that the claim of the applicant is bad for misjoinder of the necessary parties inasmuch as the applicant has illegally impleaded the present Opposite Party in order to get wrongful gain from it. The opposite party No. 3 further pleaded that the applicant was a minor and dependent upon his parents and he was not a earning member. Further, the vehicle in question was a Tractor and according to the provisions of M.V. Act, no person can be allowed to go as a passenger by a Tractor and the applicant was travelling by the said Tractor in violation of the provisions of M.V. Act and the provisions of Insurance Policy and as such, the applicant is not entitled to claim any compensation from the Insurance Co., on the principles of no fault liability. It was further contended that the applicant has not produced any Injury Report or Medical Certificate to substantiate the permanent disablement caused to him due to the injuries sustained and as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Co. is not liable to indemnify the insured for the injuries sustained by the applicant. 4. The parties appeared before the Tribunal and were heard. After examining the witnesses and perusing the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal framed the followings issues:- (I) Is the claim application as framed maintainable? (II) Has the applicant got valid cause of action for the claim application? (III) Did the applicant suffered his right leg crushed and became permanent disabled due to rash and negligent driving of driver (O.P. No. 2) of Tractor bearing No. JH-09K-5079? (IV) Is the applicant entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? 5. The Tribunal, after discussing all the issues in details, partly allowed the application filed u/s. 166 of M.V. Act, directing the Opposite Party No. 3, New India Insurance Co. (IV) Is the applicant entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? 5. The Tribunal, after discussing all the issues in details, partly allowed the application filed u/s. 166 of M.V. Act, directing the Opposite Party No. 3, New India Insurance Co. to pay compensation of Rs.2,09,723/- with simple interest @ 6% from the date of institution of this claim application till realization of compensation amount, within a period of one months from the date of filing of deficit court fee, if any, failing which the same shall be realized from the Insurance Co. with a penal interest of 9% from the date of filing till the date of its realization. 6. The appellant has assailed the impugned Award on the following grounds:- (a) The learned Tribunal has misdirected itself and has ignored the fact that the Claimant was travelling on the tractor, which was a goods carrying vehicle and as such, the status of the Claimant was of gratuitous passenger. Hence, the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any amount of compensation as no risk was undertaken to cover the liability accruing to third party travelling on a Tractor. (b) The learned Tribunal has also not considered the fact that no policy was taken by the Owner of the vehicle for carrying passengers on the Tractor since the Tractor was not a passenger carrying vehicle. (c) The learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the Insurance Co. cannot be held liable to pay any compensation to cover the risk of gratuitous passengers being carried on Tractor. (d) The learned Tribunal has also not considered the fact that from the FIR it is evident that the Claimant was returning his home by the said Tractor in the capacity of passengers, which was neither permitted under the law or under the provisions of the insurance policy and as such, Insurance Co. cannot be held liable to pay any compensation indemnifying the Insured. cannot be held liable to pay any compensation indemnifying the Insured. (e) The learned Tribunal has failed to consider the fact under the provisions of Rule 2(b) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, a Tractor is a non-transport vehicle and similarly, Agricultural Trailor is coupled with Agricultural Tractor and is predominantly used for transporting agricultural materials as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989, which makes the position clear that the tractor and trailor are not meant for carrying passengers in any capacity. (f) The learned Tribunal has also failed to consider the object and purpose of Section 147 of the M.V. Act, which provides that ‘any person’ does not include the gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods carrying vehicle, which fact has also been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its various judgments. 7. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Co. strenuously urges that the Claimant, being a labourer, cannot claim compensation from the Insurance Co., as no premium was paid by the Owner of the offending vehicle to compensate a labour. In this regard learned counsel relied upon Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act. Learned counsel further argues that in the instant case, the Tractor in question was meant for carrying goods only and not for carrying any passengers. But inspite of the said fact, the Claimant was travelling on the said Tractor being a gratuitous passenger and as such, the liability cannot be fixed upon the Insurance Co. and if any, compensation was to be paid, the same should be paid by the Owner of the offending vehicle, since it is the Driver of the said vehicle who has committed breach of settled provisions of law. Learned counsel emphatically argued that as no premium was paid to the Insurance Co., it cannot be held liable for payment of compensation and also the theory of pay and recover does not apply in the instant case. However, it was fairly submitted by the learned counsel that in compliance of order dated 03.08.2015, passed by this Court, the Insurance Co. has already deposited the awarded amount. 8. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. places heavy reliance on the following judgments:- (1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Serjerao & Ors. [ AIR 2008 SC 460 ]. (2) Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy & Ors. has already deposited the awarded amount. 8. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the Insurance Co. places heavy reliance on the following judgments:- (1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Serjerao & Ors. [ AIR 2008 SC 460 ]. (2) Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Devireddy Konda Reddy & Ors. [ AIR 2003 SC 1009 ]. (3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rattani & Ors. [ AIR 2009 SC 1499 ]. (4) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Biltan Sao @ Biltan [ (2016) 1 BBCJ 74 ]. 9. On the other hand, Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Claimant-Respondent No. 1 vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel argues that the Claimant was a labourer and not a passenger and the Tractor was not a commercial vehicle, rather, it was meant for agricultural use. Learned counsel further argues that in the said incident the right leg of the Claimant had been amputated and as such, no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in fixing liability upon the Insurance Co. to compensate the Claimant. Learned counsel for the Claimant places heavy reliance on the following judgments:- (I) Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. [ (2017) 4 SCC 796 ]. (II) Shamanna and Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2018) 9 SCC 650 ]. 10. Heard the rival contentions of the parties, perused the materials available on record including the Lower Court’s Records. 11. The only question which arises for consideration in the instant Appeal is whether the Claimant is entitled for an order against the Insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the awarded sum to the Claimant and then to recover the same from the Owner of the vehicle in question. 12. This issue remains no more res integra in view of catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, particularly in cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur, reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Upendra Rao, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kaushalaya Devi, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 246 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshan Lal, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 803 ; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvathneni, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 785 . Ltd. Vs. Challa Upendra Rao, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kaushalaya Devi, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 246 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshan Lal, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 803 ; and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvathneni, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 785 . Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. (supra) has held as under:- (15) This question also fell for consideration recently in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Saju P. Paul & Anr., [ (2013) 2 SCC 41 ], wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of Section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by reversing the judgment of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" and hence, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, this Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the Insurance Company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of “pay and recover”. (16) Justice R.M. Lodha (as His Lordship then was and later became CJI) speaking for the Bench held in paras 20 and 26 as under: “20. The next question that arises for consideration is whether in the peculiar facts of this case a direction could be issued to the Insurance Company to first satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 2 herein). 26. The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517 should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, the claimant was 28 years old. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517 should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, the claimant was 28 years old. He is now about 48 years. The claimant was a driver on heavy vehicle and due to the accident he has been rendered permanently disabled. He has not been able to get compensation so far due to the stay order passed by this Court. He cannot be compelled to struggle further for recovery of the amount. The Insurance Company has already deposited the entire awarded amount pursuant to the order of this Court passed in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Saju P. Paul (supra) and the said amount has been invested in a fixed deposit account. Having regard to these peculiar facts of the case in hand, we are satisfied that the claimant (Respondent 1) may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court along with accrued interest. The Insurance Company (the appellant) thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner (Respondent 2 herein). The recovery of the amount by the Insurance Company from the owner shall be made by following the procedure as laid down by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Upendra Rao [ (2004) 8 SCC 517 ].” (17) The facts of the case at hand are somewhat identical to the facts of the case mentioned supra because here also we find that the deceased were found travelling as “gratuitous passengers” in the offending vehicle and it was for this reason, the insurance companies were exonerated. In Saju P. Paul’s case (supra) also having held that the victim was “gratuitous passenger”, this Court issued directions against the Insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum and then to recover the same from the Insured in the same proceedings.” 13. The same view has been reiterated in case of Shamanna & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra). 14. The same view has been reiterated in case of Shamanna & Anr. Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra). 14. In the present case, the tractor was insured for agricultural purpose and the victim was coming with sand on the said tractor, which shows that the tractor was used for commercial purposes and for that no extra premium was paid to the Insurance Co. Admittedly, the Claimant was a gratuitous passenger inasmuch as the owner of the tractor by engaging the tractor in non-agricultural purposes, itself violated the terms of the Insurance Policy and as such, the Insurance Co. will not be liable to indemnify the Insurer, though, admittedly, due to accident right leg of the Claimant, Ravi Kumar was amputated and he became permanently disabled. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that no different view can be taken what has been discussed aforesaid in catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such, the impugned judgment needs no interference, as far as the amount of compensation is concerned but the same is modified to the extent that Insurance Co. being the Insurer of the offending vehicle, which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to first pay the awarded sum to the Claimant and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the Owner of the offending vehicle. 16. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is modified to that extent. 17. Since the compensation amount has already been deposited, the Claimant is entitled to withdraw the same and the Insurance Co. would be entitled to recover the entire awarded sum from the Owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with due process of law. 18. Resultantly, the present appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modifications and observations. 19. Office is directed to return the Lower Court’s Records to the Court concerned at the earliest. 20. The Insurance Co. is at liberty to withdraw the statutory amount deposited before this Court.