ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. N CHANDRASHEKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the insurer of the tractor bearing No.MYK 6450 who was third respondent before the Tribunal challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant, who is the first respondent, for the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 30-8-1987 at 10.30 p.m. on Cunningham Road, Bangalore.

(2.) The Tribunal has held that the first respondent sustained injuries in the accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos. MYK 6450 and MYK 5298, respectively by its driver. It is not disputed that the appellant has issued a policy in respect of the tractor bearing No. MYK 6450 and the trailer bearing No. MYK 5298 had not been insured. The appellant had taken up a plea that as only the tractor had been insured with them and that the accident was caused by the tractor-trailer, they are not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor-trailer, who is the present third respondent. They contended that the policy prohibited the use of the tractor for drawing a trailer and that as, there was breach of terms of the policy, the insurer was absolved from any liability to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has held that as the tractor was insured and as the trailer cannot move by itself, the non- insurance of the trailer would not take away the liability of the insurer of the tractor. The Tribunal has therefore made the appellant-insurer liable for the entire compensation awarded to the claimant.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant Sri H.G. Ramesh contended that the policy specifically contains" a clause prohibiting the use of the tractor while drawing a trailer and that as admittedly the tractor was drawing a trailer at the time of the accident there is a breach of condition of the policy and as such the insurer cannot be made liable for the compensation. He further contended that the definition of 'motor vehicle' would show that it includes a trailer, that under the Motor Vehicles Act no motor vehicle can be used on the road without it being insured and that as such it is mandatory to insure even a trailer, which comes within the definition of 'motor vehicle'. His contention was that if even in a case where the trailer is not insured the insurer of the tractor alone is made liable for the claim arising out of an accident caused by tractor-trailer, then those provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act which stipulate that even a trailer will have to be insured become redundant.