S.H. VORA, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 6.12.2007 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), F.T.C. No. 4, Bharuch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 317 of 2000 u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the Act) while awarding compensation of Rs. 9,86,400, the appellant (original opponent No. 4). The New India Assurance Company Limited held liable to pay said compensation to the original claimants jointly and severally with the other opponents and further, the appellants liability was fixed at 40%, the appellant (original opponent No. 4). The New India Assurance Company Limited is before this Court in an appeal u/s 173 of the Act questioning the award insofar as the Tribunal held it jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and further made apportionment of 60-40% between the original opponent Nos. 3 and 4 in absence of owner having been joined as party in the claim petition. Undisputedly, neither the claimants nor the original opponent No. 3-The United India Assurance Company Limited challenged the award on any counts or grounds.

2. As the main contest is between the appellant and original opponent No. 3-United India Insurance Company Limited as to Tribunal is justified in passing the award against the appellant in absence of owner of trailer having been joined as party in the claim petition, it is not necessary to discuss the other facts in detail.

3. Since the award has not been challenged, it stands conclusively proved that the opponent No. 1, who was driving the tractor, ran tractor over the deceased and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. At the relevant time of accident, the tractor was insured with opponent No. 3- United India Insurance Company Limited whereas, the trailer was insured with the opponent No. 4 i.e. appellant herein. Meaning thereby, both the tractor and trailer were insured separately and were owned by the two different persons but the fact remains that the tractor and trailer were being used for transportation at the relevant time of accident. Meaning thereby, both the owners of the tractor and trailer were deemed to have been permitted use of the same on the date of accident. Legally speaking, the tractor and trailer cannot be treated as different and separate vehicles. Suffice it to refer to the definition of the motor vehicle, tractor and trailer as defined under Sections 2(28), 2(44) and 2(46) of the Act respectively. Once the accident took place, the motor vehicle involved is the tractor and trailer i.e. both have to be taken together as one and for the purpose of the accident, they cannot be treated to be as separate vehicles. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be inferred that the owners of both the vehicles would have consented for use thereof and, therefore, the award can be passed for payment of compensation and they cannot be separated for the purpose of attributing the liability differently to the Insurance Companies.

4. But the question which arises in this appeal is such that the owner of the trailer, namely, Hitendrasinh Ratansinh Solanki was not joined as party in the claim petition. In that event, whether the Tribunal is empowered to pass an award against the opponent No. 4, i.e. appellant herein. As such, the question raised by learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing for the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rendered in case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Vs. Aminbhai Pirmohomad Master and Others, (1982) 2 ILR (P&H) 76 and, more particularly, paragraph Nos. 7 and 9 thereof read as under:

7. The grievance of the Insurance Company as the insurer of the motorcycle is that the owner of the motorcycle was not made a party to the petition and, therefore, no award could have been passed against the Insurance Company. It is a fact that the owner of the motorcycle Dwarkadas Bhagwanbhai who was himself driving the said vehicle was