K.KANNAN,J. - (1.) THE application is filed for review of the judgment by this Court in bunch case FAO No. 929 of 2009 exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground that where there existed no policy of insurance by payment of premium for a trailer attached to a tractor and hence, the Insurance Company would not be liable. The review is sought on the ground that the issue was not argued by the counsel although set as one of the grounds and, therefore, the applicant had no occasion to submit the arguments.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that the point has been answered against the Insurance Company by a judgment of this Court in "United India Insurance Company v. Pritpal Singh and others, 1996(2) R.R.R. 335 : 1996(2) PLR 49". In that case, the accident took place with the trolley and not with the tractor and the contention of the Insurance Company was that since the trolley was not insured, thus, the Insurance Company was not liable. The Division Bench held that even though a trailer may be drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself is not a motor vehicle and both the tractor and the trailer taken together would constitute a transport vehicle. If consequently, there was a policy of insurance for a tractor as a motor vehicle, it would enure to the claim arising out of an accident involving the trailer attached to the insured tractor. On the objection raised by the applicant, who is the claimant, that the point was not argued before the Court by the Insurer and, therefore, the claimant could not make the submission regarding the same, it is not seriously disputed. I may observe that the Tariff Advisory Committee have laid down rules, regulations, rates etc. for transactions of motor vehicles in India in accordance with the provisions of Part II-B of the Insurance Act. Under the provisions of the Tariff, which are binding on all concerned, there are a specific tariff for trailers apart from tariff for goods carrying vehicles under Section 4 of the Indian Motor Tariff (for brevity, 'the IMT'). Section 4 of the IMT, which details the regulations for tariff on commercial vehicles, sets out tariff for goods carrying vehicles of various categories and gives independent provisions for tariff for trailers, Section 4 Para 1(B) sub-clause (iii) of the said Section prescribes a fee of Rs. 3,000/- per trailer as the minimum value for the purpose of computation of premium. Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 lays down that no liability could be undertaken by an Insurer without collection of premium. The said Section reads thus: "64VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance.- (1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner. (2) For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer. Explanation.- Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be. (3) Any refund of premium which may become due t an insured on account of the cancellation of a policy or alteration in its terms and conditions or otherwise shall be paid by the insurer directly to the insured by a crossed or order cheque or by postal money order and a proper receipt shall be obtained by the insurer from the insured, and such refund shall in no case be credited to the account of the agent. (4) Where an insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behalf of an insurer, he shall deposit with, or despatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in full without deduction of his commission within twenty-four hours of the collection excluding bank and postal holidays. (5) The Central Government may, by rules, relax the requirements of sub-section (1) in respect of particular categories in insurance policies. (6) The Authority, may, from time to time, specify, by the regulations made by it, the manner of receipt of premium by the insurer."
(3.) THERE are several judgments of various Courts which have examined the liability of the Insurer for accidents involving trailers even when no independent premium had been paid for the trailer. A later judgment of this Court in "United India Insurance v. Surinder and others, 2006 ACJ 1285" held, in relation to a tractor, which was insured comprehensively for agricultural purposes, that a tractor being not designed to carry any load without equipment to mean that an accident caused by even a trailer attached to a tractor would make the insurer liable, no matter that premium for trailer has been paid or not. The other decision which takes the same line of reason are "Gunti Devaiah and others v. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others, 2004(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 178 : 2004 ACJ 1881". The Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment was in the context of workmen, who were travelling in the trailer attached to the tractor as loadsmen claiming damages for the motor accident against the insurer of the tractor. The Andhra Pradesh High Court reasoned that a compulsory insurance for workmen under Section 147 will extend to them a right of enforcement of claimants against the Insurance Company. The Gujarat High Court has also subscribed to a similar view in "United India Insurance Company Limited v. Manjulaben Purshottamdas Patel and others, 1994 ACJ 740". The Court has held that a tractor and the trailer could not be treated as separate vehicles and that by driving the tractor rashly and negligently, the Insurer would be liable to a third party even though trailer is not insured. The Karnataka High Court took a similar view in "United India Insurance Company Limited v. Koduru Bhagyamma and others, 2009 ACJ 514".;