AKIL KURESHI, J.

1. This first appeal presents peculiar facts and concerns the limited question of liability of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, opponent No.3 of the first appeal filed by the original claimants.

2. Brief facts are as under:

On 07.01.2001, at about 6.30 in the evening, opponent No.4 was driving a tractor with attached trailer. The tractor was owned by opponent No.1 but the trailer was owned by opponent No.2. Opponent No.3 company, had insured the trailer. The tractor was uninsured.

3. According to the claimants, the tractor was being driven rashly and at excessive speed. Even the joint, by which the trailer was attached to the tractor, was defective. As a result, the trailer got detached from the tractor and its one of the wheels ran over Anupsinh Chauhan, who was standing on the roadside causing his death. The accident caused bodily injuries to other bystanders also. We are, however, not concerned with their claim petitions since neither side has appealed against the judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal.

4. Widow and two minor children of deceased Anupsinh, therefore, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 8 lacs from the driver, the owner of the tractor and the trailer, and the insurance company of the trailer. The Claims Tribunal computed compensation of Rs. 6,66,488/-.

5. Before the Claims Tribunal, the insurance company of the trailer had taken a stand that the trailer cannot be considered a motor vehicle since it cannot move on its own. The proposal note for issuance of the insurance policy and the insurance policies were produced on record to contend that the trailer was insured along with a specific tractor. The insurance cover would apply only when the trailer is being driven by such tractor and none else.

6. The Claims Tribunal did not accept the stand of the insurance company fully. The Tribunal held that the tractor and trailer were both involved in the accident and apportioned the liability of compensation equally between the two vehicles and thereby held the insurance company liable to the extent of 50% of the compensation of Rs. 6,66,488/- computed by it. This judgment and award has given rise to this appeal by the claimants who seek full compensation that may be recovered from all the opponents jointly and severally. The insurance company has filed cross objection claiming no liability at all.

7. One Hemantbhai Godhani, Development Officer of the Oriental Insurance Company was examined at Exh 75. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the policy of insurance was issued for a specific tractor and in consideration of an additional premium of Rs. 317/- indemnity was provided under the policy to extend to the trailer also. According to him, this single policy is issued with respect to both the vehicles. He stated that, the coverage given to the trailer was by way of extension of insurance of the tractor. According to him, the tractor and the trailer were insured as a single vehicle and therefore, a single policy was issued. The trailer when attached with another tractor would not be covered by the insurance policy. In the cross-examination, however, he agreed that the trailer cannot move on its own. In the insurance policy there was no condition which prohibited the use of trailer with another tractor. The proposal form was produced at Exh 82 and even in such proposal form, no such condition was imposed.

8. In addition to the deposition of said Shri Hemantbhai Godhani we also have the insurance certificate at Exh 74 and the proposal-cum-input form at Exh 82 issued by the insurance company before issuance of the insurance policy. Perusal of the proposal of insurance Exh 82 would show that particulars of vehicles to be insured were indicated as tractor and trailer. For tractor premium of Rs. 507/- was quoted. For trailer, insurance premium of Rs. 317/- was quoted. Similar reference to the computation of premium is found in the insurance policy Exh 74 also. Neither of these