NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. ANASURYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question of law has been raised by Shri Somayajulu the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. Namely, whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation for the death of or bodily injury to persons travelling in a tractor-cum-trailer insured under the contract of insurance with the appellant-company? The admitted facts are that Ram Reddy, the 6th respondents the owner of the tractor and trailer APM 3601 and APM 3602. He has employed the 5th respondent Ramulu as their driver. On October, 22, 1985, when the tractor-cum-trailer was transporting the sand to the field of the owner from a vagu after loading the sand for which the deceased Anjaneyulu and Ors. were engaged as labourers to load and unload the sand, due to the negligent driving of the 5th respondent, the deceased fell down from the tractor at the turning of the road. The tyres of the vehicle passed over him due to which he died. Respondents 1 to 4, the widow, the minor daughter and the parents of the deceased, laid the claim in a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased Anjaneyulu. The Tribunal below awarded a sum, in all, of Rs. 33, 800/- namely, Rs. 28, 800/- towards loss of dependency and Rs. 5, 000/- towards loss of consortium, love and affection, and fastened that liability on the insurance company under the contract of insurance, Ex. B-1.

(2.) IT is relevant to refer to the definitions of the words 'Trailer' 'Motor Vehicle' and 'Goods Vehicle' as given in Sub-sections 32, 30, 18 and 8 of the Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. IV of 1939) (for short the Act'):

(3.) THE contention of Shri Somayajulu is that a reading of these provisions does show that tractor-cum-trailer is neither a goods vehicle nor a passenger vehicle. Therefore, the owner is not entitled to allow any person other than the driver and attendant to travel in the tractor-cum-trailer and for any death occurred of the person other than third parties, the insurance company is not liable. In support thereof, he places strong reliance on Rule 302 of the Rules which reads thus: