M.N. Krishnan, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP (MV) 227/03. The claimant was a coolie by profession and according to him while he was attempting to board the tractor due to the negligent driving of the tractor driver he fell down and the back wheel ran over his left foot resulting in sustainment of injuries. The insurance company contended that it is not liable to pay compensation for the reason that he was a passenger in a tractor which is not covered by the policy. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the insurance company and passed an award against the first respondent in the claim petition. It is against that decision the claimant has come in appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that the Tribunal has erred in arriving at the decision that the status of the claimant is that of a passenger and therefore it requires interference.

3. Learned counsel would contend that as per the definition of passenger under the Motor Vehicles Rules it must be only a person who is travelling in a vehicle authorized to carry passengers. So he first contends that he will n