The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance policy did not cover the risk involved to the deceased, absolving the insurer from reimbursing the owner and placing the entire liability on the owner of the vehicle.

These two civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Perambalur dated 21.08.2001 made in M.C.O.P.No.316/1999. The first respondent (owner of the vehicle) in the above said MCOP has filed C.M.A.No.73 of 2002. The second respondent (Insurer) in the MCOP has preferred C.M.A.No.948/2002. The claimants before the Tribunal have been arrayed as respondents 1 to 4 in both the appeals. The appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 figures as the respondent No.5 in C.M.A.No.948/2002, whereas the appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002 figures as the respondent No.5 in C.M.A.No.73/2002.

2. Mr. Rajendran, the husband of the first respondent and also the father of minor respondents 2 to 4 in both the appeals died in an accident that occurred at about 1.30

a.m on 13.02.1992 while he was travelling in a tractor bearing Regn.No.TN-45 7871 belonging to the appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002/first respondent in MCOP No.316/1999. The accident is said to have taken place near Jayankondam Pudhu Chavadi. Contending that the above said deceased Rajendran, while travelling in the said tractor along with his goods after loading his paddy bags in the tractor suffered a fatal fall from the tractor as the same was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, the respondents 1 to 4 herein as dependents of the deceased made a claim before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation. The claim was made against the appellants in both the appeals, who figured as respondents 1 and 2 in the MCOP, on the ground that the appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 was the owner and the appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002 was the insurer on the relevant date of the above said tractor involved in the accident.

3. The claim was resisted by the insurer, namely the appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002 contending that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of the trailer bearing Regn. No.TN-31 1022 were not made parties to the MCOP and that the said appellant (insurer) was not liable to reimburse the owner of the tractor as the trailer was not covered by the insurance policy issued by the appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002. It was also contended therein that the deceased person travelled along with 32 others in the above said trailer attached to the tractor insured with the appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002 and that hence the said appellant could not be mulcted with the liability to reimburse the owner of the tractor to the extent of the compensation he might be directed to pay to the claimants.

.4. The appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002, who figured as the first respondent in the MCOP admitted that his tractor alone was insured with the United India Insurance Company (appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002). However, the appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 (first respondent in the MCOP) contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor and hence the claimants (respondents 1 to 4 in the appeals) were not entitled to claim compensation on the basis of fault under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was the further contention of the owner of the vehicle (appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 / first respondent in the MCOP) that even assuming that there was negligence on the part of the driver, since the tractor stood insured with the second respondent in the MCOP (appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002), as per the terms of the contract of insurance the entire liability should be shouldered by the insurer. The said stand was taken by the owner of the vehicle based on his contention that though the tractor and trailer were assigned separate registration numbers, they could not be construed to be two different vehicles as the trailer itself could not move without being pulled by the tractor and that on being attached to the tractor, it became part of the

.tractor itself.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence brought before it on either side, came to the co