JUDGMENT :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (afterwards referred as ‘Act of 1988’) has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 17.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Siker (afterwards referred as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 12/2011, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,15,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 16.12.2010.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.22010 at about 11:00 AM when deceased Sitaram was going towards Bhagdio Ki Dhani from Panchota, a Tractor bearing No. RJ-23-RA-4620, being driven rashly & negligently by its driver, hit the deceased from back side, as a result of which, Sitaram sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. An FIR was lodged and after investigation police submitted challan against driver of the offending vehicle.

3. A claim petition to this effect was filed by the claimants for award of compensation.

4. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing reply denying the averments made in the claim petition.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal has framed as many as five issues. On behalf of the claimants AW-1 Hardev and AW-2 Ramchander were examined and on behalf of non-claimants NAW-1 Devilal and NAW-2 N.P. Tyagi were examined.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal vide impugned judgment has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,15,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 16.12.2010.

7. Before delineating the core question regarding fastening or exonerating the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation, it would be appropriate to refer to the following judgments necessary to resolve the issue involved in the present appeal.

8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Girdhari Ram and Others, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1652/2013, decided on 14.02.2014 whilst analyzing the definitions of Tractor, Trailer, and Goods Vehicle stipulated in the Motor Vehicles Act, and placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the matter of Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2005 SCC 3428 held that a Trailer when attached to a Tractor converts into a category of a Goods Vehicle and without paying the extra premium and having a valid licence to ply the goods vehicle violates the conditions of the policy, hence Insurance Company is not under an obligation to indemnify the third party.

9. Similarly, Punjab High Court in the matter of The New India Assurance Com. Ltd. vs. Sohan Lal and Others, FAO Nos. 72, 135/1994 and 1677/1993, decided on 10.12.2012 held as under:

“10. The case that squarely raised the issue and the answer it found to require insurance for the trailer independently arose in The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs. N. Chandrashekaran and Others, 1997 ACJ 512. The court held after adverting to the definition of tractor and trailer “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.”

(VII) Principle of pay and recover could apply only if there exists in the policy of insurance for the particular vehicle that caused the accident.”

10. Before arriving at the above conclusion Punjab High Court gave the following reasons while analysing the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act:

“A trailer can never be driven by itself. It has no locomotion. It can be attached to a tractor. It can be attached to something which can pull it. Th