- (1.) All the appeals are connected as they arise out of the claim of compensation for death of a driver and a passenger in a jeep. The claims were at the instance of the respective representatives of the deceased persons. The accident was on account of a collision between jeep and a tractor attached to a trailer. The Tribunal found the negligence of the driver of the tractor as having been established and ordered compensation to be paid by the insurer of the tractor. The appeals by the New India Assurance Company are FAO Nos. 135 and 72 of 1994 and FAO No. 1677 of 1993 is the cross appeal by the claimants. II. On facts: Case of composite negligence of both vehicles' drivers The learned senior counsel for the Insurance Company points out from evidence that if the accident had been the result of a collision between two vehicles coming from opposite directions, the manner in which the accident has been spoken to by the eyewitness PW-5, showed that the impact was not against the tractor itself but it was only with the trolley. PW-5 had stated that after the accident, the jeep was pushed towards the left side of the road and had fallen in a ditch and the left side front portion of the trolley had hit the jeep. The learned counsel would argue that if the left side front portion of the trolley had been the point of impact coming from the opposite direction, then it meant that the jeep driver had driven himself much to the right side of the road to cause the collision with the left front side of the trolley. The counsel for the respondents would explain that the vehicle tractor was being driven in a zigzag manner and, therefore, the left front portion of the trolley was exposed for the point of impact with the jeep. Even if I should strain the expression "zigzag" to meant a complete right turn by the tractor coming on the right side, it cannot result in collision with the left side of the tractor unless the jeep driver himself had swerved to the right and dashed to the left side portion of the tractor. It was also a matter of evidence (that was indeed a matter of common sense, as well) that the speed of the tractor was less than the speed of the jeep. I cannot find the driver of the tractor alone to be responsible, but I would hold by the point of impact on the trolley as not on any front portion of the tractor that there had been some error in judgment of the driver of the jeep also. I would apportion the liability equally and take the driver of the jeep himself as having contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% and would take the liability of the driver of the tractor to be 50%. III. Liability of insurer: The points of rival contentions
(2.) The other point that is urged by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that it was brought out in evidence that the insurance policy had a cover to an accident involving the tractor only and the trolley that was attached to the tractor had not been insured. The contentions on behalf of the insurer were: Since the accident itself was by the result of a collision with the trolley, the Insurance Company could not be stated to be responsible for the consequences of the accident involving the trolley; A tractor itself is a mechanical contrivance that cannot carry persons or goods without a trolley being attached to it. The liability for an insurer for any accident that involves the use of the tractor and trolley would arise appropriately only in situations where both the tractor and the trolley are insured and premium paid as per the IMT. In this case it has been brought on record that the premium had not been paid and the insurance had not been taken for a trolley attached to the tractor. This, in the manner canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents, will have a bearing for consideration of the issue of liability particularly of the application of the principle to indemnify the insured. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that so far as the claim emanates from a third party who is entitled to proceed against the Insurance Company in every situation where the insured's vehicle is involved, the benefit that the Insurance Company could obtain would be only to deny to the insured a right of indemnity and allow for recovery of the claim from the insured. As far as the third parties are concerned, the respondents' counsel would argue that they shall be entitled to enforce the claim against the insurer and the insurer in turn will have a right to obtain recovery of the amount to the extent to which it is indemnified. IV. Relevant provisions of MV Act regarding Tractor and trailer/trolley
(3.) Some of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are required to be examined to identify whether a trailer which is attached to the tractor is statutorily required to be registered with the authorities under the Act to secure a distinct registration number and whether there is any necessity for having a policy of insurance for a tractor attached to a trailer. The definition of the "tractor" and the "trailer" are also essential to know the particulars of use as the Act contemplates. "Tractor" is defined under Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act which is reproduced as under:- "Tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road roller. It will be evident that it is not designed to carry load. A tractor by itself cannot therefore be a goods vehicle. It is possible in many instances that a tractor is fitted with harvester combine for carrying agricultural operations in agricultural fields. The user of the tractor in such circumstance is not for the purpose of carrying goods but it is only for the agricultural purpose. In such situations, the tractor could be used in agricultural lands and the policy of insurance that is required should be taken as statutorily mandated under Section 147 in so far as the vehicle is put to use in a public place. "Trailer" is brought through a distinct definition under Section 2(46) which is reproduced as under:- "Trailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. The trailer cannot propel itself and it is invariably attached to a mechanically propelled contrivance. In the context of a trailer attached to the tractor, it becomes capable of carrying goods, "goods carriage" is defined under Section 2(14) and it is required to be reproduced as under:- "goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. Since the definition contemplates a motor vehicle used for the purpose of carriage of goods, irrespective of the nature of construction or adaptation, a tractor being incapable of carrying goods by its definition could become a goods carriage only if a tractor is attached to a trailer which is so designed to carry goods also. If the tractor by its attachment to a trailer becomes a goods carriage, it becomes a transport vehicle as well, as brought out through the definition under Section 2(47) that is defined as follows:- transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Because a transport vehicle includes a goods carriage, a tractor with trailer becomes a goods carriage. The manner of treatment of a vehicle has an immediate bearing for four aspects: (i) for the purpose of the licence that is required for a person, who is competent to drive the said vehicle under Section 3; (ii) for understanding the requirement under Chapter IV of the Act prescribing the procedure for registration of every motor vehicle. A tractor is undoubtedly a motor vehicle also as defined under Section 2(28), since it is a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads; (iii) for the purpose of Chapter V relating to control of transport vehicles requiring the permits to be obtained for carriage of goods; and (iv) as regards the nature of insurance that is possible for the owner of a tractor to purchase to cover the risk arising on account of the accident involving a tractor.;