SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant United India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment cum award dated 30.4.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar in MAC No. 68/2011 whereby the Tribunal accepted the claim application filed by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 claimants and awarded them compensation of 11,40,000/- on account of death of Chanan Singh and whilst accepting the claim, the appellant Insurance Company as well as the respondents No. 4 and 5, the driver and owner respectively of the tractor bearing registration No.RJ13.7M.7194 involved in the accident were held jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. The appellant Insurance Company has approached this Court by way of this appeal assailing the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding it jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award alongwith the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
(2.) Shri Anil Bachhawat learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company has assailed the judgment of the Tribunal contending that on the date of the accident, the same was being plied after attaching a trolley/trailer thereto. Thus, as per him, as soon as a trolley/trailer was attached to the tractor, the modification would form a transport vehicle/goods carriage. He relies on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in 2006 ACJ 1 and contends that as the offending vehicle was modified and converted to a transport vehicle, it was essential that the driver thereof should be possessed of a licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. He further contended that the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes and as the same was being used as a transport vehicle by attaching a trolley thereto, when it met with the accident, the Insurance Company would not be liable to cover the risk of the damages caused by the use of the tractor when being used in this mode. He drew the attention of this Court to the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue No. 2 regarding the defences raised by the Insurance Company at para 22 of the judgment wherein the Tribunal held that the tractor driver was having a driving licence Ex.-10, which was valid for driving a motor vehicle and a tractor from 24.6.2006 till 23.6.2011. Learned Counsel submits that a tractor is covered under a light motor vehicle, but as a trolley/trailer was attached to it, the combination took shape of a transport vehicle and thus, in view of the conditions of the insurance policy, it was essential for its driver to be possessed of a valid licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. Learned Counsel submits that as admittedly in this case the driver was not having a valid licence for driving a transport vehicle at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award.
(3.) Per contra, Shri Rakesh Matoria, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5 the driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle as well as Shri Rajendra Charan learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and claimants vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company.;