Insurance liability remains valid for agricultural vehicles regardless of accidental attachments, as per statutory definitions.

1. As both these appeals arise out of the same award dated 12.10.2007 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Korba (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 55 of 2007, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.6.2006 when Laxmi Prasad Bhupendra was riding his motor cycle, he was dashed by tractor - trolley bearing registration Nos. CG 12 - F 0522 and CG 12 - F 0523 respectively, which at the relevant time was being driven by the non - applicant No. 1, Birbal Yadav, owned by the non - applicant No. 2, Ramkunwar, and duly insured with non - applicant No. 3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. As a result thereof, Laxmi Prasad sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to hospital, however, on 25.6.2006 he succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur.

3. A claim case bearing No. 55 of 2007 was filed by the claimants, who are widow and children of the deceased, five in number, before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 1,20,00,000, inter alia, pleading that at the relevant time, the deceased was working as SRS / JCM operator in Bharat Aluminum Company Limited, was aged about 43 years, drawing monthly salary of Rs. 36,724, he died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question and, therefore, they are entitled for compensation as claimed from the non - applicants.

4. The insurance company contested the case on the ground that though driver of the vehicle, i.e., tractor was having licence to drive LMV (non - transport) but the moment the tractor is attached with a trolley, it becomes a transport vehicle and, therefore, on account of there being breach of policy conditions, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. This ground was taken by the insurance company as according to it, at the time of accident bricks were being transported by trolley attached with the tractor in question whereas the same was insured for agricultural purposes.

5. However, the learned Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record by the impugned award granted a total compensation of Rs. 15,32,000 in favour of the claimants with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realization, fastening the liability, jointly and severally, upon the insurance company along with driver and owner of the vehicle in question on the ground that there was no breach of policy conditions as the vehicle in question was being used for agricultural purposes and its driver was having a valid and effective licence to drive the same.

6. It is this award which has been challenged by the claimants in M.A. (C) No. 1429 of 2007 seeking enhancement of compensation whereas the insurance company by filing M.A. (C) No. 53 of 2008 has challenged the same on the point of liability.

7. M.A. (C) No. 53 of 2008:
Contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is that the tractor was registered for agricultural purposes and the moment trolley is attached with the tractor, it becomes a transport vehicle whereas the driver was having licence to drive LMV (non - transport). Further, on the date of accident, the vehicle in question was being used for commercial purposes and, therefore, there being violation of policy conditions the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability of satisfying the claim.

8. Replying to this argument, it has been contended on behalf of the claimants that undisputedly driver of the vehicle was having a valid licence to drive LMV and tractor falls in the category o