The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act is determined based on the definition of 'third party' under section 145(g) and the conditions under which the insurance company can be held liable for the payment of compensation amount.

( 1 ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal under section 173 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the M. V. Act'), feeling aggrieved by the award dated 18. 12. 2003 passed by Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, jaora, District Ratlam in Claim Case No. 55 of 2003, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation amount of rs. 90,000 in favour of Girvarnath, son of ramnath Kalbelia, respondent No. 1 and liability has also been saddled on the appellant insurance company.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 5. 3. 2001 Girvarnath, respondent No. 1, original claimant in the claim petition was going on a tractor No. MP 14-8852 from tajkheda to Mahidpur, as a labourer on this tractor. This tractor was being driven by Bagdiram, respondent No. 2, rashly and negligently. Resultantly, tractor turned turtle near village Delchi, thereby respondent no. 1-claimant sustained grievous injuries on his left leg and on hip joint. The matter has been reported to the police Mahidpur road; thereby the concerned police registered a criminal case against the driver, respondent No. 2, for the offence under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal code. On these allegations, respondent No. 1-claimant has filed claim petition under section 166 of the M. V. Act, claiming the compensation amount of Rs. 3,28,000 from the present appellant insurance company and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, driver and owner of the concerned tractor. Learned tribunal, after due appreciation of the entire evidence on record, held that present appellant together with driver and owner of the concerned tractor are jointly and severally responsible for the payment of compensation amount of Rs. 90,000 to claimant-respondent No. 1 and awarded the aforesaid amount in favour of respondent no. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid liability, which has been saddled on appellant insurance company, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1-claimant has also filed cross-objections under Order 41, rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code against the impugned award itself, feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation amount and prayed for enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 5 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the concerned tractor was insured with the appellant insurance company only for agricultural purposes, whereas claimant-respondent No. 1 was travelling in the concerned tractor in violation of the condition of the insurance policy as a gratuitous passenger, therefore, the liability for the payment of compensation amount cannot be saddled on the insurance company, therefore, submits that learned tribunal has committed error in holding appellant insurance company also liable for the payment of compensation amount, therefore, prayed for modification of the impugned award with regard to the liability saddled on appellant insurance company.

( 6 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that claimant-respondent No. 1 was travelling in the concerned tractor as agricultural labourer, not paid any fare for travelling on this tractor, therefore, he happened to be the third party for this accident. The learned tribunal has rightly saddled the liability for payment of compensation amount on the insurance company also. Therefore, no interference is called for with this finding. But similarly assailed the finding with regard to the quantum of compensation amount. According to him, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation amount of rs. 90,000 only which is on lower side. The claimant-respondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries, which caused permanent disability to his earning capacity, therefore, prayed for enhancement of the compensation amount.

( 7 ) FIRST point for consideration before this court is as to whether the liability for payment of compensation amount is rightly sad