The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company could not be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants as the tractor, in which the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger, was not covered under the statutory policy of insurance.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the insurance company is against the award dated 7. 2. 2005 passed by the Third Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ujjain in m. V. C. No. 28 of 2004. By the impugned award for the death of Shyama in an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle in a public place, Claims Tribunal assessed and awarded total sum of Rs. 1,70,000 (rupees one lakh seventy thousand) as compensation payable to legal representatives of the deceased. The driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before Claims Tribunal whereas the appellant insurance company contested the claim denying its liability to pay compensation. Overruling the objection of the insurance company learned Claims tribunal has fastened the liability jointly and severally on the driver, owner and the appellant insurance company. Hence this appeal by the insurance company.

( 2 ) AT the outset, it may be stated that there is no cross-appeal or cross-objection for enhancement. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submitted that the quantum of compensation determined and awarded by the Claims Tribunal is not under challenge in this appeal. It is confined only to the limited question of liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation either jointly or severally.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy, relevant facts in brief are as under: on 7. 10. 2003 deceased Shyama was travelling as gratuitous passenger on the tractor belonging to respondent No. 5. It was being driven by the respondent No. 4. Shyama who was sitting on mudguard due to jerks, fell down and wheel of tractor ran over him leading to his death on the spot. Claimants, who are widow and children of the deceased Shyama, filed a claim petition against the owner, driver and the appellant claiming compensation. Suffice it to say that learned Claims Tribunal appreciating evidence with regard to income and age and other relevant factors, assessed the total amount of compensation at Rs. 1,70,000 and held that appellant along with owner and driver of the tractor, were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants together with interest. Learned claims Tribunal fastened the liability on the insurance company holding that the insurance company failed to prove that at the time of accident, tractor was being used for non-agricultural purpose when Shyama met with his tragic end.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for appellant contended that Claims Tribunal erred in law in holding the insurance company liable. He submitted that tractor is neither a goods vehicle nor a public service vehicle, therefore, insurance company under the law was not obliged to cover the risk of any person other than the driver travelling in the tractor. The learned counsel for appellant further submitted that the rules of pleadings do not require pleading of law and no evidentiary proof is required in respect of such law. The courts and Tribunals are bound to take judicial notice of law of the land enacted by the legislature. In support of his contention learned counsel appearing for the appellant made reference to sections 147, 149 read with relevant clause of section 2 (definition section) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act' ). According to him as per policy, appellant had covered the third party risk and the risk of driver only and not the risk of any passenger. It was the case of no insurance and as such the appellant was not required to indemnify insurer (owner of tractor) in respect of liability arising out of use of tractor. Thus, according to him the appellant in the facts of the present case, could not be jointly and severally held liable to pay the amount of compensation. The amount of compensation was exclusively payable by the owner and driver, therefore, directing insurance company to pay the amount jointly and severally is illegal. He further contended that insurance company even could not be asked to pay the amount with a liberty to recover