The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the victim in the event of an accident, even if the vehicle is being driven in breach of the conditions under section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

( 1 ) BOTH these appeals are referred to the larger Bench by the Division bench to determine the question:"whether insurance company can be held liable in the case of death or bodily injuries caused in a motor accident involving a tractor which was insured only for agricultural purpose and the sitting capacity was also shown to be one only but used for different purpose at the time of the accident?"

( 2 ) OPPOSITE view has been taken by two division Benches which resulted into the reference before this Bench. In the case of babu Ram v. Om Prakash, 2000 ACJ 393 (MP), it is held that in such circumstances, insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally with the insured. Similar view was taken by this court in the case of Sukhnandan Ram Sahu v. Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. , 1999 ACJ 750 (MP) and in the case of Ramji Lal v. Omkar Lal, 2004 ACJ 238 (MP ). However, contrary view has been taken by another Division Bench of this court in the case of Pushpa Devi v. Kamal Singh, 2003 ACJ 383 (MP ). In this case, it is held that even if the tractor is used for the purpose other than agricultural or forestry, insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation which may, however, be recovered by the insurance company from the owner (insured ). In the light of the aforesaid contrary view of the division Benches, the matter is referred to larger Bench.

( 3 ) MR. K. N. Gupta, Advocate appearing for the claimants submitted that by Act 54 of 1994 section 147 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 has been amended with effect from 14. 11. 1994. He submitted that in the light of the amendment in section 147 the insurance company is bound to indemnify the third party. He also submitted that the intention of the legislature is explicit and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. He submitted that in the facts of the case, judgment of the Supreme court in the case of New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC), is not applicable to this case. This judgment relates to the cases which were prior to amending Act of 1994. He submitted that it is clear from para 2 of the aforesaid judgment that three categories of the cases have been defined and it is mentioned that in the case of Asha Rani (supra), cases which fall in the category No. (ii) have been decided. As regards cases in category Nos. (i) and (iii), namely, the cases which are covered by Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the accidents occurred after 1994 amendment are concerned, have been finally adjudicated in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. National insurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 1565 (SC ).

( 4 ) THE counsel for the claimants then invited attention to rule 97 of the M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules and section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that under sub-rule (5) of rule 97 passengers can be carried in the trolley of the tractor. He submitted that even in the cases where the driver of the vehicle is found to have no valid licence, then also as held by the supreme Court the insurance company is liable to indemnify the victim or members of the family of the victim. In support of his contention, he referred to the judgment in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC) and sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 acj 1044 (SC ).

( 5 ) THE counsel for the claimants further submitted that third party would include the passengers travelling in the trolley. He submitted that the contract is between the insurer and the insured and any other person who is victim of the accident is a third party to the contract. Insurance company is bound by statutory liability to pay compensation to victim. Insurance company is bound to indemnify the victim and cannot avoid its liability on the ground of breach of the conditions of the policy.

( 6 ) IT is further contended by the counsel for the claimants that once the trolley is attached to the tractor it acquires the status of goods carriage and any person tra