JUDGMENT:

An accident occurred on 11.11.2018 at about 6:30 pm, near Gayathri Rice Mill, at Haveli Ghanpur village, between a Tractor (bearing No. TS-15EE-0930) with attached Trolley (bearing No. AP-23K-9127), and a motorcycle bearing No. TS-16-ED-2102. As a result, the rider of the motorcycle and the pillion rider both fell down. The rider sustained severe injuries and was shifted to Medak Government Hospital, and thereafter to Mallareddy Narayana Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries on 12.11.2018 at 1:00 am.

1.1. The claimants filed a claim petition, MVOP No. 4 of 2020 before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District & Sessions Judge, at Medak. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined, and Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW-1 was examined, and Exhibits R1 to R3 were marked.

1.2. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, passed Order dated 06.02.2024 awarding a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the claimants, by apportioning the compensation among the claimants, and held that the respondent No.1-driver, respondent No.2-owner of Tractor bearing No.TS-15-EE-0930, and respondent No.3-owner of Trolley bearing No.AP-23K-9127, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim as against respondent No.4-the United India Insurance company by observing that the trolley (AP-23K-9127) belonged to another tractor, and that it was attached to respondent No.2’s tractor i.e., (TS-15-EE-0930), and therefore it violated the terms of insurance policy and hence respondent No.4-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

1.3. Aggrieved by the Order dated 06.02.2024, the respondents No.2 and 3, i.e., owner of Tractor (TS-15-EE-0930), and owner of Trolley (AP-23K-9127), filed this appeal.

2. Heard Mr. T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. C. Sunil Anand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 (claimants), and Mr. M. Venkata Ramana Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.7-insurance company. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants would essentially contend that as per settled law in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Koduru Bhagyamma¹2008 (2) ALD 273, the trailer attached to a motor vehicle is part of the motor vehicle and that no separate insurance is required for trailer; and that said ratio was followed by this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Induru²2017 SCC OnLineHyd 249, and also in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Nunna Veera Venkata Satyanarayana @ Sathibabu³2011 (2) ALD 302, and that that rationale equally applies conversely also, i.e., when the trailer alone is insured then the insurer is liable to discharge the liability arising under the insurance policy, notwithstanding the tractor was not insured. It is therefore contended that the respondent No.7-insurance company is equally jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000 per month without there being any reliable documentary evidence. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Srikakulam v. Ravva Vijayalakshmi⁴2023 (4) ALD 35 (AP), and submits that the Court held that law does not contemplate both tractor and trailer should belong to same person to use them for carrying on activities.

3.1. Learned counsel refers to paragraph 32 of Ravva Vijayalakshmi (supra), wherein it was held as follows:

“In the instant case, the tractor belongs to respondent No.2, and the trailer belongs to respondent No.5. The tractor was insured with respondent No.3, and the trailer was insured with respondent No.6. As already observed in preceding paragraphs, both tractor and trailer were involved in the accident. In light of the legal position stated above, this Court views that even if assumed that the trailer is