The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'tractor' under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the legal obligations of the insurer and the insured in cases of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Nirmal Singh, J.

1. This order shall dispose of above said two appeals arising out of common award dated 17.1.2003 passed in two petitions by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short, the Tribunal). In Claim Petition No. 226 filed by Surinder Kumar, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,899 whereas in Claim Petition No. 227, it has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,35,200 with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation in both the petitions, to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.1999, Ram Prashad (deceased) and Surinder (respondent No. 1 in F.A.O. No. 1404 of 2003) boarded tractor No. HR 52-1256 from Bhawan Kund, Palwal for going to their village Devli. The said tractor was being driven by Subhash Singh, driver, rashly and negligently and at about 4.15 p.m., when they reached near Narula Rice Mill in the area of Sadar Palwal, the tractor turned turtle along with the trolley due to which the same fell into ditch, as a consequence of which Ram Prashad and Surinder received grievous injuries. Ram Prashad succumbed to his injuries.

3. The legal heirs of Ram Prashad filed claim petition, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000 whereas Surinder, injured, filed claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000 for his injuries before the Tribunal, who awarded compensation as stated in para 1 of the order, against which the above said two appeals have been preferred by appellant insurance company.

4. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation in respect of the passengers travelling in the trolley. He submitted that trolley in which Ram Prashad, deceased and Surinder, injured, were travelling, was not insured with the company. He further submitted that the owner had got the tractor insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying passengers and, therefore, the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. He further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and, thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award dated 17.1.2003.

6. The offending tractor was being driven by Subhash Kumar, driver. He was having a valid driving licence. The said licence had been issued by the Licensing Authority, Hathin, which was valid up to the year 2018. The driving licence, Exh. P1, has been duly proved on the record by the claimants by examining Vinod Kumar, PW 1, ahlmad. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently but he was having a valid driving licence.

7. Admittedly, the offending vehicle, i.e., tractor, was insured comprehensively against the premium of Rs. 2,076 with the appellant company. Now the question to be seen is whether any agriculture instrument attached to the tractor is deemed to be insured along with the tractor. The word tractor has been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under:

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.

A perusal of the definition of the word tractor shows that the tractor itself is not able to carry any load without the equipment. Therefore, any equipment attached to the tractor is a part of the tractor and covered under the insurance policy.

8. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that deceased Ram Prashad and Surinder, injured, had taken the lift from the driver without the consent and knowledge of the owner and, therefore, it tantamount