Point of law: Ploughing or crushing machines - semi-trailers - every instrument including ploughing or crushing machine attached to a tractor will not necessarily be a trailer

JUDGMENT

Abhay S. Oka, J.

A learned Single Judge of this Court, by the Judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2018 disposed of MFA Crob Nos. 100001/2016 (MV) in MFA No.102649/2015, MFA Crob Nos. 100003/2016 (MV) in MFA No.102651/2015, MFA Crob Nos. 100002/2016 (MV) in MFA No.102650/2015, MFA No.102649, MFA No.102650/2015 and MFA No.102651/2015. While disposing of the said MFA cross objections and appeals, the learned Single Judge was of the view that since there are conflicting decisions rendered by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court, the following questions are required to be referred to a larger Bench of this Court:

(I) Whether a person travelling on a mud-guard of a tractor can be construed as an authorized passenger or an unauthorized passenger and liability of such person is covered or not?

(II) Whether the persons who are working either on the ploughing or crushing machines attached to the tractor can be construed as employees so as to cover their risk statutorily under Section 147 of MV Act though there is only one seating capacity in the tractor apart from the driver?

(III) Whether the crushing machine or ploughing machine or any other instrument attached to the tractor can be considered to be an attachment to the tractor so as to cover the risk of the insured in respect of employees and the policy taken in respect of the tractor alone?

(IV) What is the effect of Section 147 of MV Act to cover the statutory risk under the said situation?

2. In M.F.A.No.22106/2012 (MV), the same learned Single Judge, by the Order dated 14th March, 2018 referred to the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2018 delivered in MFA Crob No. 10000/2016 (MV) and other connected matters. The learned Single Judge observed that in view of the reference made by him to the larger Bench by the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 2nd January, 2018, even the said appeal being MFA No.22106/2012 be also placed before the larger Bench for deciding the same issues. As, the similar issues were involved in MFA No.23434/2012, MFA. No. 296/2016 and MFA Crob No.100128/2016 in MFA No.23434/2012, they were clubbed with this batch of appeals. By a special order dated 23rd November, 2020, the present Full Bench is constituted to decide the above issues.

SUBMISSIONS:

3. The submissions have been made on behalf of the claimants by Shri. S.P. Shankar, the learned Senior Advocate. Shri. A.K. Bhat, the learned Advocate also sought leave of the Court to make his submissions for supporting the case of the claimants. On behalf of the insurance companies, submissions have been made by the learned counsel Shri. B.C. Seetharama Rao and Shri. A.G. Jadhav.

4. We may note here that some submissions were made on the issue whether in a given facts of the case, an insurer can be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V Act’). However, we are not concerned with any specific case. We are called upon to decide the questions formulated by the learned Single Judge which revolve around the requirement of statutory insurance under Section 147 of Chapter XI of the M.V. Act. We may also note here that we are considering the provisions of the M.V. Act as amended by the Act No.54 of 1994. We are not called upon to consider the provisions of the M.V. Act as amended by the Act No. 32 of 2019.

5. We must note here that after the submissions were concluded, Shri. S.P. Shankar, the learned Senior Counsel placed on record a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Shah Faesal and others –vs-Union of India and another, AIR 2020 SC 3601 . The said decision was placed on record as it appears that the learned senior counsel wants to argue that the reference made by the learned Single Judge to a larger Bench was not warranted at all.

6. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel was that the tractor in question was used in the agricultural field of the insured