G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) ALL the appeals can be disposed of by common order. The appeals are filed by the claimants on a very limited issue as to the liability of the insurance company.

( 2 ) THE claimants travelled in a trailer as coolies on 8. 6. 1993 and on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, it turned turtle and consequently all the occupants in the trailer received injuries and, therefore, they laid claims for compensation.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal recorded a finding that the driver of the tractor was responsible for the accident and the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The Tribunal further recorded that since the tractor was insured and trailer was not insured, the liability was fastened only on the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company was absolved of the liability. Aggrieved by the said order to the extent of absolving the insurance company from the liability, the above appeals are filed by the claimants contending that the insurance company ought to have been made liable along with the owner of the tractor.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the claimants-appellants submits that tractor was carrying the trailer along with the employees and even though the trailer is not insured, yet inasmuch the negligence is attributed to the driver of the tractor which was insured by the insurance company, it is liable for payment of compensation as it covered third party risk.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the trailer has to be separately insured and it is an admitted case that the trailer was not insured at all. The tractor was only insured comprehensively. Therefore, the liability of the insurance company could not be comprehended to the occupants of the trailer. She relies on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Nagashetty v. United India insurance Co, Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 1441 (SC) and also a judgment of this court reported in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Janarasupalli Kotiratnamma, 2001 ACJ 2131 (AP ).

( 6 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether the trailer should be separately insured for the purpose of claiming compensation in respect of the accident caused by the driver of a tractor.

( 7 ) THE facts of the case are not much in dispute. The tractor was comprehensively insured. The trailer was not separately insured. Occupants in the trailer received injuries and the claim was allowed only fastening the liability of the owner of the tractor. For this purpose, the definitions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act are necessarily to be referred.

( 8 ) BEFORE considering the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act for proper appreciation of the matter.

( 9 ) UNDER section 2 (28) of the Motor vehicles Act, motor vehicle or vehicle is defined as follows:"2 (28) motor vehicle or vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails" or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimetres. "

( 10 ) SECTION 2 (44) of Motor Vehicles act defines tractor thus:" (44) tractor means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller. "trailer is defined in section 2 (46) as follows:" (46) trailer means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. "

( 11 ) semi-TRAILER vehicle is defined in section 2 (39) as follows: (39) semi-trailer mean

Click Here to Read the rest of this document