The attachment of a trolley to a tractor insured for agricultural purposes does not violate the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Suresh Kait, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 17.08.2010, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.1,15,593/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.

2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the offending Tractor was insured with the appellant Company, whereas at the time of accident, the said Tractor was carrying a Trolley. Thus, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.

3. To strengthen his arguments, Ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. N. Chandrashekara and Ors. 1997 ACJ 512 of the Karnataka High Court, wherein it is held as under:

“6. The vehicle which has been insured with the appellant is only the tractor. The definition of tractor shows that it is not a vehicle constructed to carry any load. When the tractor draws a trailer then it would become capable of carrying load. Any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for carriage of goods is a goods vehicle. As such a tractor which has a trailer attached to it becomes a motor vehicle adopted for carriage of goods and it becomes a goods vehicle. A division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanumantappa : 1992 ACJ 1083 (Karnataka), after referring to the definitions of motor vehicle, tractor, trailer and goods vehicle, has held that there can be no doubt that a trailer is constructed for the purpose of carriage of the goods and when it is pulled by a tractor both together constitute a transport vehicle i.e., a goods vehicle. In that judgment the Court has also pointed out that under the Indian Motor Tariff, trailers are covered under the commercial vehicle type and has further pointed out that the fact that tractor-trailers are covered under the commercial vehicle tariffs also supports the conclusion that a tractor-trailer has got to be treated a goods vehicle as defined under Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

7. In the present case the appellant has only issued a policy in respect of the tractor and the appellant would be liable to indemnify the insured in respect of risk arising out of the use of tractor as such. But if the tractor draws a trailer and the accident is caused by such tractor-trailer then the vehicle causing the accident would not be a tractor but a goods vehicle. It is only if both tractor and trailer are insured the insurer would be liable to indemnify the owner against claims arising out of the use of tractor and trailer. This view would be in conformity with the other statutory provisions which require even a trailer to be insured. As in this case it is undisputed that only the tractor was insured with the appellant and that the trailer was not insured and that the accident was caused by the tractor-trailer it has to be held that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant.

8. For the above reasons this appeal is allowed and the judgment and award of the Tribunal are modified by setting aside that portion by which the appellant is also made liable to pay the compensation. The rest of the judgment and award against the respondents-2 and 3 is not disturbed.”

4. Ld. Counsel submits that in view of the judgment noted above, only the Tractor was insured with the appellant and trolley cannot be considered as part of the Tractor. Therefore, appellant is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Ld. Tribunal has framed one of the issues as under: -

“Whether respondent no. 1 is not liable to pay the compensation since the Trolley is not covered under the policy?”

6. The appellant has taken a ground in their written statement filed before the Ld. Tribunal that appellant is not liable to pay any com