( 1 ) THE Insurer is the appellant. First respondent-claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor owned by sixth respondent herein. During the pendency of claim petition, the first respondent-claimant since died, Respondents 2 to 5 have been impleaded as the legal heirs. Under the impugned judgment, dated 18-6-1998 in o. P. No. 14 of 1992 on the file of the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Hindupur, at the culmination of the enquiry, allowed claim of the claimant for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and directed that the amount shall be paid with interest at 15% per annum from the date of petition till realization by the first respondent-insurer, the present appellant. Having been aggrieved by the said judgment, the insurer has now filed the present appeal assailing the same.

( 2 ) THE main thrust of the contention of the appellant seems to be that the insurer is not liable, inasmuch as the trailer on which the deceased and others found to be travelling on the fateful day, had not been insured with the insurer.

( 3 ) THE Respondents 1 to 5 seek to contend that the tractor having been admittedly insured with the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that the trailer attached to the tractor has not been separately insured, the insurance company is liable.

( 4 ) THE only point that falls for determination in this appeal is:"whether the offending vehicle happens to be a tractor and trailer attached to it, both are required to be insured, or suffice if the tractor is insured leaving the trailer?"

( 5 ) IN Oriental Insurance Co. , Ltd. v. J. Kotiratnamma, 1999 (6) ALT 745, a learned Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that inasmuch as under the insurance policy, the liability for trailer has not been undertaken by the insurer, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner for compensation payable since trailer which is being a goods vehicle requires to be insured, even though it is pulled by the tractor. An opposite view seems to have been taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Gunti Devaiah v. Vaka peddi Reddy, 2003 (6) ALD (NOC) 24 = 2003 (6) ALT 300, having regard to the fact that the trailer by itself cannot be driven and therefore the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent driving would not arise and that it is only for tax purposes, the trailer is required to be insured separately and the trailer has been treated as a goods vehicle and as per the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated when the trailer is attached to a tractor, it becomes tractor and trailer. A distinction shall have to be drawn between the motor vehicle and a vehicle i. e. , visible in all the definitions and more especially in chapter-XI The learned Judge has ultimately taken a view that the insurance of the trailer is not a mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 146 of the Motor vehicles Act. Having regard to the cleavage in ordinary course, I would have referred the matter to the Bench for consideration and to settle the difference of opinion. However, on an examination of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the legal position seems to be obvious. Under the new Act, the expression tractor and trailer have been defined under Section 2 sub-sections (44) and (46) respectively. Similarly, the expression; heavy goods vehicle , light motor vehicle and motor vehicle or vehicle were also defined under Section 2 sub-sections (15), (21) and (28) of the Act respectively. The tractor comes within the definition of a heavy goods vehicle when the unladen weight exceeds 12,000 Kgs and when the unladen weight of the tractor does not exceed 7500 Kgs, it becomes light motor vehicle. However, as can be seen from the definition of motor vehicle or vehicle as given in Section 2 sub-section (28) of th