NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KOTTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurer has filed these appeals challenging the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod in O.P. (MV) No. 611 of 1996 and 417 of 1996 respectively whereby the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased and the injured in a motor accident.

(2.) The vehicle in question is admittedly a tractor as defined in S.2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Neither the deceased nor the injured was the owner of any goods carried in the vehicle or his representative. Further, the vehicle was not carrying any goods at the relevant time. As per the definition of a tractor, it is not one designed to carry goods. Even if it was carrying goods while it was being used, it will not come within the definition of goods carriage, as defined in S.2(14) of the Act.

(3.) Ext.B6 is the registration certificate of the vehicle in question which shows that it has the sitting capacity to accommodate its driver alone and, therefore, it does not come within the definition of public service vehicle as defined in S.2(35) of the Act. Tractor is not included in the different types of vehicles that come under public service vehicles. Obviously, it has been specifically defined under S.2(44) of the Act. So, the tractor which was involved in the accident in question cannot be taken as a public service vehicle or a goods carriage as it was not carrying any goods at the relevant time. Inspite of that, the Tribunal relying on the decision reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Appukuttan, ( 1995 (1) KLT 807 ), directed the insurer to compensate the claimants. This is, impugned in these appeals.