S.K. Gangele, J.

( 1. ) This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against an award dated 25.8.2004, passed by the learned First Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guna in Claim Case No. 4 of 2003 questioning the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the insured. The claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 6 have filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.

( 2. ) On 16.10.2003 deceased Kashiram had been travelling in a tractor attached with trolley bearing registration No. MP 08-H 0107. Near Shanker Temple, the tractor turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. In the aforesaid accident deceased died. Report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station, Dharnawada, an offence vide Crime No. 246 of 2003 under sections 279, 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle.

( 3. ) Learned Claims Tribunal has held that accident occurred when the deceased was travelling in a tractor attached with the trolley. Tractor was insured by the appellant insurance company for agricultural purpose. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 and held that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Admittedly, from the facts of the case it is clear that the deceased died when he was travelling in tractor attached with the trolley and the tractor was insured for agricultural purpose. ( 4. ) The Honble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Serjerao, 2008 ACJ 254 (SC), with regard to liability of the persons travelling in a trolley has held as under:

"(8) So far as the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trolleys is concerned, the matter was considered by this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan, 2007 ACJ 1909 (SC) and it was held that the insurance company has no liability. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of this court, we set aside the impugned order in each case and remit the matters to the High Court to consider the matters afresh in the light of what has been stated by this court in Yallwwas case, 2007 ACJ 1934 (SC) and Brij Mohans case (supra)."

( 5. ) Honble Supreme Court further held in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati, 2007 ACJ 1043 (SC), with regard to liability of payment of compensation of the insurance company for the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle as under:

"(11) Third party risks in the background of vehicles which are subject- matter of insurance are dealt with in Chapter VIII of the old Act and Chapter XI of the Act. Proviso to section 147 of the Act (sic) is to be (sic) with section 96 (sic 95) of the old Act. Proviso to section 147 of the Act reads as follows: Provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicles, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. (12) It is of significance that proviso appended to section 95 of the old Act contained clause (ii) which does not find place in the Act. The same reads as follows: (ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the veh