JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in-spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the said respondents. 3. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.05.2008 passed by the District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T, Dhanbad in T(MV) Suit No.228 of 2006 whereby and where under, the learned Tribunal directed the appellant-insurance company to pay Rs.50,000/- to the claimants under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in connection with the accidental death of Mithilesh Kumar Pandey @ Mithun Pandey. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 03.09.2006 while the deceased- Mithilesh Kumar Pandey @ Mithun Pandey had gone to work as a labourer in the offending tractor; due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor, the offending tractor fell in the river causing multiple injuries to the deceased- Mithilesh Kumar Pandey @ Mithun Pandey and the deceased- Mithilesh Kumar Pandey @ Mithun Pandey died to such injuries on his way to being taken to hospital. Tundi P.S. Case No.60 of 2006 has been registered under Sections 279/337/338/304A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the tractor, in connection with the said occurrence. The claimant is the mother of the deceased. 5. In the learned Tribunal, the owner of the tractor being the opposite party no.1 of the claim application did not deny the factum of accident as claimed by the claimants but claimed that the offending vehicle at the time of accident was under the insurance cover of the appellant-insurance company. The insurance company claimed that the offending tractor and trailer was insured for agricultural purpose and not for any other purpose. Hence, the opposite party no.2 be absolved from the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 6. The learned Tribunal took into consideration the charge sheet submitted against the driver of the tractor of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A of Indian Penal Code as well as the postmortem report of the dead body of the deceased and held that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger nor the offending tractor was used by any person other than the owner for carrying of the goods and the insurance company has charged the premium for own damages as well as third party damages and directed the insurance company to pay the said compensation amount. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal erred by failing to consider the fact that the deceased was travelling in the tractor- trolley insured for agricultural purposes and also in view of the fact that the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the conditions of the policy. It is next submitted by Mr. Lal that at the time of accident, the deceased was travelling in the said tractor as unauthorized person; hence the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation amount. It is further submitted by Mr. Lal that the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that the owner of the vehicle has not paid any premium to cover the risk for passengers or labour travelling in the tractor as such the insurance company will not be liable. Mr. Lal relied upon the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sarju Ram & Ors. reported in AIR 2001 Pat 47 , paragraph no.19 of which reads as under :- “19. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the law discussed hereinabove, I am, therefore, of the definite opinion that Chapter X of the Act is an independent provision and the Tribunal is bound to decide the claim application filed under Section 140 of the Act for grant of interim compensation notwithstanding the claimant having filed any other application under Section 166 or under any other provisions of the Act. I am further of the opinion that the provision of Chapter X has overriding effect over any other provision of the Act and the Legislatures have made it clear under Section 144 of the said Act.” And submits that Tribunal is bound to decide the claim application filed under Section 140 of the Act for grant of interim compensation notwithstanding the claimant having filed any other application under Section 166 or under any other provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Hence, it is submitted that the Tribunal having erroneously ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, the same be set aside. 8. Hence, it is submitted that the Tribunal having erroneously ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, the same be set aside. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination that cropped up in this appeal :- “Whether the learned Tribunal erred by directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the applicant under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act.” 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, undisputedly, the deceased was working as a labourer in the tractor, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Serjerao and Others, reported in 2008 (1) T.A.C. 6 (S.C.) relying upon its judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan and Others, 2007 (7) Scale 753 , that the insurance company has no liability in the case of labourers travelling in trolley. The Tribunal saddled the insurance company with a liability to pay the insurance amount on the ground that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger nor the tractor was used by any other person for carrying the goods and the insurance company has charged the premium for own damage also. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Tribunal erred by observing that premium paid for own damage will cover the deceased who was travelling as a labourer because own damage in the jargons of insurance covers the damages caused to the vehicle and certainly will not cover the labourers carried in a tractor unless the premium has been paid specifically in respect of such labour. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount but it is a settled principle of law as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Manuara Khatun & Ors. v. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors., reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796 , para- 22 of which reads as under:- “22. Accordingly, the appeals succeed and are allowed. Impugned order is modified to the extent that Respondent 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is accordingly directed to pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants). Thereafter Respondent 3 United India Insurance Co. Singh & Ors., reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796 , para- 22 of which reads as under:- “22. Accordingly, the appeals succeed and are allowed. Impugned order is modified to the extent that Respondent 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is accordingly directed to pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants). Thereafter Respondent 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. would be entitled to recover the entire paid awarded sum from the owner (insured) of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent 1 in these very proceedings by filing execution application against the insured.” 10. As the policy of the insurance is not in dispute, this is a fit case where the insurance company be directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act to the applicants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The sole point for determination is answered accordingly. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order dated 01.05.2008 is modified by absolving the insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation amount and by holding that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the said compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as it stood at the relevant time but the insurance company is directed to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the claimants if not already paid, and the appellant-insurance company is given the right to recover the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the offending vehicle by way of execution of the order as per the law laid down in paragraph no.26 of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul & Anr., reported in (2013) 2 SCC 41 . 12. In the result, this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification. 13. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to return Rs.25,000/- if any, deposited by the appellant in connection with this appeal to the concerned officer of the appellant-insurance company upon the appellant satisfying that it has already paid the entire claimed amount to the claimants failing which, the said amount be remitted to the concerned Tribunal by appropriate mode within one month from the date of this judgment failing which the Registrar General, of this court is directed to remit the same, to the tribunal concerned. 14. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.