- (1.) The following question has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 23.02.2016. Whether Thresher attached with the tractor in an agricultural field for sifting the grain from the chaff, can be determined as a 'Motor Vehicle or Vehicle' or integral part of the tractor.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the definition of 'Motor Vehicle or Vehicle' as defined under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under: 2(28). 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding thirty-five cubic centimetres; 1 'Tractor' has also been defined under Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 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;
(3.) Learned counsel has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Meera - MACD 2010 (1) Raj. 330 , wherein in para 6 to 10, learned Single Judge has held as under: 6. In my view, a look at the provisions of Section 2(44) which defines tractor would show, that according to this definition, 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. Obviously this definition includes equipments used for the purpose of propulsion. Thrasher which was being propelled/operated by the tractor in the present case is very much an equipment used for the purpose propulsion by the tractor, and is contemplated to be carried by the tractor, and it cannot be said like trailer or semi trailer, so as to fall within the meaning of any vehicle, so as to require any separate registration, or separate insurance cover. 7. The cases cited at the Bar before the learned Tribunal are on the aspect of the accident occurring by use of trailer with the tractor, or on the aspect of requirement of the accident taking place by mobile vehicle, as contra-distinguished from stationary vehicle, or on a public road, and no judgment has been cited on the side of the appellant to show, that in case of such an equipment used for the purpose of propulsion by the tractor does require independent insurance cover, in order to fasten liability on the insurer. It is required to be comprehended, that thrasher apart, there is long list of such equipments which are used for the purpose of propulsion by the tractor, for the purpose of carrying agricultural operations which may include different types of plough, equipment to flatten the land, equipment to prepare the water courses, thrasher, instrument to pump water from water body, and so on and so forth. Obviously, in absence of any provision in the Motor Vehicles Act requiring separate insurance cover with respect to any one or more such equipment in addition to the insurance cover of the tractor, in order to attract liability of the insurer in the event of accident, it cannot be said that where the tractor is insured, and the victim is a third party, the insurer could not be held liable. 8. I may also refer to the statement of N.A.W. 5 Mool Chand Surana who was posted as Branch Manager, and in cross examination he has categorically admitted as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... 9. This leaves no manner of doubt that the requirement of obtaining additional insurance cover, or requirement of paying additional premium with respect to any equipment used for the purpose of propulsion attached with the tractor, would be a sine qua non, only in cases where such equipment requires separate registration under the Motor Vehicles Act. Obviously, it is not shown either before the learned Tribunal, or before me, that the thrasher was an equipment which did require registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, also on the evidence of N.A.W. 5 it cannot be said that in the present case the appellant is not liable. 10. In the net result I do not find any error in the conclusions arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The appeal thus has no force and is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. ;