Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the insurer against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Churu dt. 23.11.1995 decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs. 1,45,000, and holding the appellant also liable.

2. The claim petition has been filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Pappu who died in the accident on 5.12.1994.

3. The necessary facts are that the deceased is said to have been employed with the defendant no. 1 Begraj on daily wages of Rs. 40/- as labourer, and was also working as agricultural labourer with Begraj who used to sent him with his tractor. It is then alleged that on fateful day the tractor No. RJ 10/R.0375 was sent by Begraj along with his driver son Chhagan on the field of Ladu Ram Godara along with Pappu deceased for thrashing of the crop. In the process of thrashing when there was some obstruction Pappu was clearing it, at that time the tractor was operated rashly and negligently unmindful of hand of Pappu being there in the thrasher due to which the hand and neck of Pappu got cut and resultantly Pappu died. With these averments the owner defendant no. 1 Begraj, driver Chhaganlal defendant no.2, and defendant no. 3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. present appellant have been claimed to be responsible. Since the quantum of compensation etc. are not in controversy, I need not detain myself for those facts. The appellant contested the claim interalia on the ground that the facts have been concocted, the amount claimed is excessive, and that the insurer is not liable for any compensation. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence by the son of the owner, and for this no premium was paid. It was pleaded that actually tractor was got insured, perhaps meaning thereby that the thrasher was not insured, the driver was also not holding any valid driving license. Thus, the insurer denied its liability.

4. The learned Tribunal framed six issues. However, deciding issue no. 4 being about maintainability of the claim petition before the Tribunal on account of the deceased's hand having got entangled in the thrasher by his own negligence, discussed the controversy about liability of the appellant also, and found that the insurer is also liable for the compensation. After discussing the judgments cited at the Bar before the Tribunal, it was found that the accident occurring by the thrasher would be deemed to be an accident arising out of use of the motor vehicle, because the thrasher was being operated by the tractor only, and was not capable of being independently operated. It was also found, that since the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes, and was being so used the insurer cannot escape liability. Then, it was found that the insurer is liable if the accident occurs while the tractor is being used for agricultural purposes, and therefore, insurer was held liable.

5. Assailing the impugned award it was contended that from a look at the insurance policy, copy whereof has been produced as Ex. A-1, it is clear, that only tractor was insured, and since the accident was not caused by tractor, but it was caused, by the hand of the deceased getting entangled in the thrasher, which thrasher was not insured with the appellant, liability could not be fastened on the appellant.

6. In my view, a look at the provisions of Section 2(44) which defines tractor would show, that according to this definition, tractor means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion but excludes a road-roller. Obviously this definition includes equipments used for the purpose of propulsion. Thrasher which was being propelled/operated by the tractor in the present case is very much an equipment used for the purpose propulsion by the tractor, and is contemplated to be carried by the tractor, and it cannot be said like trailer or semi trailer, so as to fall within the meaning of any vehicle, so as to re