JUDGMENT

P.K. Jaiswal, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant insurance company, challenging the award dated 6.8.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Morena in Claim Case No. 129 of 1998, whereby learned Tribunal held that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the award.

2. Learned Counsel for the insurance company submitted that insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured in the given facts of the case. The deceased was travelling in the trolley attached with the tractor. He was sitting on the trolley. On 16.5.1998 at about 6 a.m. deceased Rustam Singh was travelling in the tractor bearing registration No. MP 06-J 4395. No sooner the tractor reached near the village Bhadawali at Porsa-Ater Road, due to rash and negligent driving by the tractor driver, respondent No. 7, the tractor-trolley overturned. Due to the said accident, deceased was badly injured and died on the way to Porsa Hospital. The Claims Tribunal gave a finding that at the time of accident, the tractor-trolley was carrying passengers to attend the wedding and deceased Rustam Singh was one of the members of the said barat. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,44,900 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and held that the owner, driver and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of compensation. Learned Tribunal further held that insurance company is entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the tractor, i.e., respondent No. 6.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the tractor which was insured for agricultural purpose was used for carrying the barat contrary to the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Anek Singh, AW 1, has deposed that the tractor was carrying passengers as barati and his father was sitting on the tractor. He also stated that the tractor-trolley was carrying goods and utensils. He in paras 6 and 7 of his statement very specifically stated that the trolley was carrying the goods like utensils and bags of wheat, which were given as dowry to the bridegroom and all the baratis of the marriage party were returning in the said tractor. Learned Counsel for the insurance company, therefore, submitted that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma . The Apex Court in the decision in V. Chinnamma's case (supra) has held that tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes and the tractor and trailer, therefore, as it was carrying vegetables owned by a businessman, were not being used for agricultural purposes. It was in the above circumstances, the coverage of the insurance was declined in that case relying on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani , especially

when the accident was before 14.11.1994.

4. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Badami Bai M.A. No. 132 of 1994, the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes and at the time of accident, it was carrying the passengers. The single Bench of this Court has held that in the notification dated 30.9.1985, the State Government has declared that at the time of fair (mela), markets and religious functions, festivals and marriages, it is permissible to use the tractor for carrying passengers, at the relevant time, the passengers were travelling in the vehicle for attending fair and, therefore, the said use cannot be said to be contrary to the terms of insurance policy. This Court held that the notification is issued by State Government only with a purpose of R.T.O. and will not affect the terms and conditions of the policy or the liability of the insurance company as the vehicle was registered for agricultural purposes and was carrying the passengers and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. In the said decision, the accident had occurred on 30.3.1991. In the instant case, the accident occurred on 16.5.1998 subsequent to the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994.

5. In the case of Gyaso Bai v. Mahendra Singh , the accident occurred on 23.9.1991. The deceased was going on tractor-trolley to offer prayer at Karehwale Baba. On the way, at the curve of Girwai Naka due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, the tractor-trolley overturned and as a result deceased died. Tractor-trolley was insured for agricultural purposes only. The single Bench of this Court has held that the vehicle was being used for transporting passengers when it met with accident. Thus, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy are violated and insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. The learned Counsel for appellant relying on the decision of Gyaso Bai's case (supra) contended that the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation and the learned Tribunal committed an error in not exonerating the insurance company from the payment of compensation.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the claimants relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka 2006 ACJ 1 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur ; Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jugal Kishore v. Ramlesh Devi Bench

decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geetabai ; Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarvanlal ; and the Division Bench decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Sasi v. Saidali 2006 ACJ 81 (Kerala) and submitted that the tractor with trailer will satisfy the definition of goods vehicle as it is meant to carry goods and the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured and it can recover the amount from the insured. He also pointed out that the learned Tribunal directed the appellant to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the claimant that in the present case, the accident occurred after 14.11.94, i.e., after the amendment of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the above decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the accident had occurred prior to 14.11.1994 and, therefore, the said decisions will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. He lastly submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Nat-war Parikh & Co. Ltd. (supra), in which the accident had occurred much prior to 14.11.1994, has held that tractor and trailer when combined would constitute a 'goods carriage' under Section 2(14) and consequently a 'transport vehicle' for transporting goods from one place to another and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation.

7. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. It is not in dispute that the deceased was travelling in the trolley of the tractor and when the accident had occurred, he was sitting in the trolley. As per insurance policy, Exh. D5, the vehicle was insured for agricultural purposes only. Persons or class of persons entitled to drive (applicable to non-transport vehicle). The relevant extract of the insurance policy reads as under:

Any person including insured provided that person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988.

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. 2006 ACJ 1 (SC), has held that the tractor and trailer falls under Section 2(14) as a goods vehicle. Para 24 of the decision reads as under:

(24) Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words 'motor vehicle'. Although, a 'trailer' is separately defined under Section 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by motor vehicle, it is still included into the definition of the words 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28). Similarly, the word 'tractor' is defined in Section 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words 'motor vehicle' have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words 'motor vehicle' in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act was enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles, etc. Thus, a combined reading of aforestated definitions under Section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of 'motor vehicle' includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though the trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a 'goods carriage' under Section 2(14) and consequently, a 'transport vehicle' under Section 2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls under Section 2(14) as a 'goods carriage' and consequently, it falls under the definition of 'transport vehicle' under Section 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

10. In the case of Sasi 2006 ACJ 81 (Kerala), the deceased was travelling in the trailer, which was carrying stones and met with an accident resulting in the death of representatives of the owner of goods travelling in trailer along with the goods. Kerala High Court has held that the insurance company is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarvanlal , has held that the death of loader travelling in tractor when he fell down was due to its rash and negligent driving. In this case also the trolley was loaded with dowry goods and the deceased was travelling as a member of marriage party in the tractor which has no seating capacity. This Court held that the tractor-trolley is a goods vehicle and the deceased was travelling as a loader and, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation.

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jugal Kishore , considered the question whether the insurance

company is liable to indemnify the passengers travelling in trolley of tractor and whether such passengers will be treated as third party. Relying the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pushpa Devi v. Kamal Singh , has held that while considering the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has held that the insurance company has to satisfy the award in favour of third party and recover the amount from the insured.

11. From the above facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by the Full Bench and Division Bench of this Court, it is settled that even if the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and not being the owner of the goods, the insurance company is liable to pay the award and recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle because the tractor-trolley is a goods vehicle within the definition of Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. Thus, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the insurance company is liable to pay the award with a condition that it will recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

12. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.