Ms. Navita Singh, J.: - Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

2. This appeal is preferred against the award dated 20.2.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short), Rewari, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.

3. The case of the appellants was that Kartar Singh, husband of appellant No.1 and father of other appellants, died in a road accident, which took place on 26.3.1994. On the said date, at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased was returning to his village from Rewari in a tractor bearing No.HR-36-2878, which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Kartar Singh fell down and was crushed under the wheel of trolley of the tractor. The vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with respondent No.3. Compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs was claimed.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a joint reply admitting the ownership of the tractor and its insurance but denying the allegations that Kartar Singh had fallen down and died on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No.1. It was Holi on the fatal day and lot of crowd gathered near the village. The deceased, without telling respondent No.1, alighted from the tractor and fell down because of his own negligence.

5. Respondent No.3 pleaded that there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. The appellants were also not admitted to be the legal representatives of deceased Kartar Singh. It was further pleaded that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and was himself negligent and solely responsible for his death. The tractor was supposed to be used only for agricultural purposes and was not supposed to carry passengers.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues: -

1. Whether the death of Kartar Singh was the direct result of motor vehicle accident which took place on 26.3.94 on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of tractor No.HR-36-2878?OPP

2. What is the amount to which the petitioners are entitled to as compensation and from whom?OPP

3. Whether the respondent No.3 is not liable to compensate the petitioners on the death of Kartar Singh for the reasons stated in the written statement?OPR

4. Relief.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal had held under issue No.1 that the accident in question was caused because of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No.1. Under issues No.2 and 3, compensation was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,03,000/- but it was further held that the tractor had been defined under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act as a vehicle not meant for carrying passengers and that whosoever takes a ride in a tractor would be doing it at his/her own risk. Since the deceased was travelling in the tractor, neither the driver nor its owner could be liable and if the tractor was insured, the Insurance Company also could not be fastened with any liability, as petition is not maintainable. The deceased was travelling on the mudguard of the tractor and, therefore, he was doing so at his own peril. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the above said opinion of the Tribunal was not correct because so far as the liability is concerned, whether it would be of the owner or of the Insurance Company, was a matter inter-se between the insured and the insurer. The vehicle being insured, Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the appellants and it could get a right to recover the same from the owner. The petition filed by the appellants was surely maintainable. He referred to the reference made by single Bench of this Court on 10.12.1999, whereby this very matter was sent to a Division Bench for deciding the issue, posed as under: -

“Whether in an accident in which death of or an injury to a passenger being carried on a tractor is caused, the claimants c