Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. The present appeals have been preferred to question the correctness of the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Cases No. 127/2010 and 128/10 whereby the liability to pay compensation have been fastened on the appellant only and the insurance company as well as driver have been exonerated.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an accident took place on 10.11.2009. The deceased were travelling in a trolley with the stone slabs loaded in it. The trolley was attached with a tractor. Due to the rash and negligent driving the tractor fell in the pit nearby the road in which the deceased Roshan died on the spot while Mangilal got seriously injured and thereafter he died.

3. Separate claim petitions were filed to which the appellant filed reply before the Tribunal.

4. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues has decided the claim petition vide order dated 22.07.2015.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that fastening of the liability on the owner was uncalled for as the Insurance of the tractor covers the trolley also. He further submits that the deceased were travelling on the trolley in furtherance of the agricultural work for erecting the stone slabs in the field of the appellant. Since the work in question for erecting the stone slabs was for the preservation of the agriculture field therefore the purpose for which the tractor was insured will cover the risk in present accident and thus, the liability should have been fastened on the insurance company.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the insurance cover note very clearly and categorically reflects that actually the tractor alongwith driver was only insured by the insurance company and since the trolley was not covered by the insurance policy and the deceased were travelling on the trolley as gratuitous passengers, therefore, the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 22.07.2015. He further submits that except driver, the insurance company is not liable for the risk of any person travelling on the Tractor and Trolly.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 56.

9. I have considered the submissions made at Bar and have gone through the order of the Tribunal as well as relevant record of the case.

10. It is an admitted position that the deceased were travelling in the tractor trolley and as per the policy and insurance cover note it is apparent on the face of record that except tractor and its driver, the insurance company was not liable for covering the risk of trolley as well as other persons travelling on the tractor and trolley.

11. The learned Tribunal in its order has rightly noted that the stone slabs were being carried in the tractor trolley were not in furtherance of agricultural activities of the appellant. Neither it has been proved that the same were carried for the appellant himself in furtherance of agricultural activities.

12. The learned Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased persons were thus the gratuitous passengers and, therefore, risk was not covered by the insurance company.

13. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan & Ors. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that issue in great detail and it is apposite to reproduce the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :

"8. The Tribunal in its award has, inter alia, noticed that the appellant herein had raised a specific defence, namely, the trolley was not insured. It does not appear that the said contention of the appellant had been gone into. There is nothing on records to show that the owner of the tractor had produced any insurance cover in respect of the trolley. It is furthermore not dispu