Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of FAO 959 and 1006 of 1985 which have arisen out of the common award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul dated 1.6.1985. In FAO 959 of 1985 Insurance Company has prayed for setting aside of the award on the ground that liability to pay compensation could not be fastened on the Insurance Company as the Tractor was not meant for carrying passengers. FAO 1006 of 1985 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

2. The Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal, Narnaul, on a claim petition Under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act had awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the claimants Under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the death of Ram Niwas.

3. The case of the claimants as put I forth by them before the Tribunal was that the deceased Ram Niwas was travelling on tractor No. HRM 809 on 18.11.1982. The left wheel of the tractor got out of order as a result of which the tractor turned turtle. Ram Niwas was crushed under it and died on account of injuries. The claimants claimed Rs. 40,000/- compensation from the respondents.

4. The issues before the Tribunal were whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor No. HRM-8097 and whether the petitioner are entitled to any amount of compensation, if so, how much and from whom. The tribunal returned a categoric finding that the death of Ram Niwas was not caused due to negligence of the driver of the tractor. However, it awarded Rs. 15,000/-compensation on account of no fault liability Under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. The challenge to the award is that the deceased was travelling on the tractor and per provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, tractor is not a vehicle meant for carrying passenger. As such, no liability can be fastened on Insurance Company.

6. It had been argued by the respondents counsel that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. m HRM 809 and the tractor was duly insured with he Insurance Company. As such, the liability to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- has rightly been fastened on the Insurance Company.

7. On consideration of the arguments of the counsel for the parties, I find no substance in the arguments of respondents counsel Under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, tractor has been defined as a Vehicle not meant for carrying passengers. Otherwise also, it is a matter of common knowledge that tractor is not meant for carrying passengers. Whosoever takes a ride on it, shall be doing so at his own risk. If some unfortunate occurrence takes place, neither the driver nor its owner can be held liable and if the tractor is insured with the Insurance Company no liability on the Insurance Company for the death or injuries sustained in the accident, can be fastened on this account. In view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company for the death of a person who was travelling on the tractor. The law is also further settled that when a person is travelling on a vehicle which is not meant for carrying passengers, the Insurance Company is not liable.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned award of the Tribunal is set aside.

9. Resultantly, FAO No. 1006 of 1985 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.