Accident--Tractor-Trolley--Trolley attached with the tractor would constitute only one vehicle within the definition of the Light Motor Vehicle.
Accident--Medical Expenses--Injured has to take the follow up treatment also for which he might not be having all the bills--Therefore, the amount can be awarded on account of medical expenses in absence of all the bills also.

Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral):- This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. FAO No. 3102 and 4441 of 2012 filed against the Award of Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ambala (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereby an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was awarded as compensation but liability was fixed upon owner by absolving the insurance company.

2. FAO No. 3102 of 2012 is an appeal filed by the owner and driver of the Tractor Trolly bearing Registration No. HR-71-4352 whose vehicle was involved in the accident in this claim case.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is not challenging the amount of compensation in the award as such. He further submits that the Insurance Company has been wrongly exonerated on the ground that tractor was having trolley tied with it, therefore, it shall be considered to be a Goods Carriage Vehicle and therefore, was required to have a separate permit for carrying the goods.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment rendered in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.; [2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 1857 (SC) : 2017 (2) Law Herald (SC) 1441 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1136.] : 2017 AIR SC 3668 has held that trolley attached with the tractor would constitute only one vehilce within the definition of the Light Motor Vehicle Act. Even the Act defines that ‘Tractor’ meaning to include the trolley attached to it. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Insurance Company has not led any evidence whatsoever to show that any permit would be required in the present case, nor has any provision of the Act been pointed out by the Insurance Company.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further argues that at the relevant time the tractor and trolley was not carrying any goods. Therefore, there is no question of any permit to be required for a trolley by including the same in the category of goods vehicle.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company would not seriously dispute the point that as per the Act tractor means the trolley attached to it, therefore, neither any separate driving license would be required for it nor any special permit be required to ply the goods in the same. This is so, particularly, in view of the fact that at the given time, the tractor and trolley was not carrying any goods and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned above.

7. In view of the above, the finding recorded by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ambala to the extent it exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of making the payment of compensation to the claimant, is set aside. It is held that it would be the Insurance Company which shall be liable to make the payment of the entire compensation in the present case.

8. In view of the above, FAO No. 3102 of 2012 is allowed by modifying the Award of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Ambala to the extent mentioned above.

9. In FAO No. 4441 of 2012, the claimant had claimed compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has aruged that claimant has suffered serious injuries and he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. Therefore, it is the argument that besides the treatment the actual bills of which he produced before the Tribunal he had to take follow up treatment also. Besides this, it is his argument that doctor was duly examined before the Tribunal and he has deposed that injuries were extremenly serious and dangerous to life. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant he had to incur an amount of Rs. 1 lakh on treatment and he had to suffer immense pain and suffering in the accident in question. Therefore, the Award of Rs. 1,25,000/- is grossly insufficient.

11. It has come in evidence by way of deposition of Dr. Balaraja Shekhar Chandra from PGI, Chandigarh that the appellant was admitted into emergency with head