JUDGMENT :

1. The Insurance Company is the appellant in this appeal. It is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.03.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Judge) Dharmapuri in MCOP.No.639 of 2015.

2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,22,000/- as compensation payable by the appellant Insurance Company to the respondents/claimants on the following heads:

3. The appellant/insurance company has challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal on three grounds namely liability, negligence and quantum of compensation.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has submitted that the liability cannot be fastened on the appellant/insurance company. He further submitted that there is no insurance policy for tanker. It is submitted that as per Ex.R.2 Copy of Insurance Policy, the policy has been given only for the tractor alone and the unregistered tanker was not insured with this appellant/insurance company.

6. However, this Court in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Tamilarasi and another (CMA.No.898/2017, dated 14.09.2018) has held as under.

“In the case referred above, a tractor attached with a trailer was parked in the middle of the road without switching on the parking light and the deceased who was riding TVS 50 Moped dashed behind the tractor and met with an accident. The insurance company took a defence that the trailer was not insured and the trailer should be used only for agriculture or forestry purpose and not for commercial purpose. They further contended that as the trailer was not insured with them at the relevant time, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The Honourable Madras High Court has ruled that the trailer cannot independently move and it has to pulled by a tractor. Further it was observed that for putting the tractor to effective use, the trailer is required and that tractor and trailer being interconnected to each other, insurance company cannot avoid their liability on the ground that the trailer was not insured, more particularly when the tractor was insured effectively with the insurance company. Therefore, the observation in the above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand.

Thus the liability can be fastened on the appellant/insurance company.

7. That apart, the appellant/ insurance company cannot disown the liability as it had insured the tractor. The definition of tractor under Section 2(44) it is 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.. Thus, it is only designed to mechanically propel engines and is intended to be attached with trailers/tankers. Therefore, the contention of the appellant/insurance company that no liability can be fastened is to be rejected.

8. As far as negligence is concerned, there is no eyewitness for the accident. A complaint was lodged by the deceased father, based on which, FIR was registered. The deposition of RW4 who is the driver of the insured tractor reveals that one of the tyre of the tractor was punctured and therefore, he left the tractor with the tanker on the road and had placed a stone on its side for identification and left his father in the spot. No statement has been recorded from the owner of the vehicle/ the father of the driver Mani (RW4). Therefore, since no eye witness has been examined by the appellant to prove that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the de