UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KITABO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the four cases address the issue of liability on the ground that the vehicle that was insured was the tractor and at the time of the accident, there was a trolley attached to it. The claim arose out of a collision of the tractor-trolley with a Gypsy jeep and the claimants were all passengers in the Gypsy. For a claim by a third party against the tractor owner and the insurer, the defence was that the trolley had not been insured with the insurance company and, therefore, the insurance company will not be liable. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relies extensively on several judgments to show that tractor and trolley are two different entities and unless both had been insured, the liability cannot be fastened on the insurer. In my view, the proposition urged is wholly erroneous and does not merit acceptance. I will proceed to show how it is fallacious by a reference to a judgment which the learned counsel relies upon. In Natwar Parekh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka., 2006 ACJ 1, the Apex Court was dealing with the case of an accident involving a tractor and trolley, which was used for transporting goods from one place to another. The tractor and trailer when put together constituted a goods carriage and necessitated a permit for its use on the road. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the State would be empowered to levy a tax on motor vehicles which are designed and manufactured for use on the roads. A case relating to the need for a permit to ply on road is not an issue which we are answering before this court and the reliance on the judgment is, therefore, unnecessary. The learned counsel also refers to the notification issued under the Motor Vehicles Act and particularly the notification in SO 329 (e) dated 13.5.1992 that sets out the different types of vehicles and the notification defines a trailer as falling within a category of transport vehicle. If it is a transport vehicle, then there are special requirements under the Act and in particular reference to section 149 that deals with the permissible defences of the insurance company, it may have a bearing if a vehicle is used for a purpose other than for which the permit is issued. It is nobody's case that vehicle involved in the accident was used in contravention of the permit. It is wholly irrelevant that the tractor and trailer are separate vehicles and an insurer could be liable only if both of them are insured. It must be remembered that it is not a case where a claim is made for any person travelling in the goods carriage which is a trailer when the trailer was not insured. Nor is this a case where there is any claim made by a person, who had the use of the trailer unauthorisedly and, therefore, there was a breach of condition in the terms of policy. If a passenger in a jeep, who was the third party to the tractor, comes by a personal injury or death, the insurer, by the fact that the offending vehicle/tractor had been involved in accident, shall become liable. The addition of a trailer to the tractor cannot make a difference for a claim by a third party. It may have a bearing only in cases where the claim is by a person, who has had the use of trailer or the trolley. The insurance company is wholly at a tangent in assuming that its liability cannot be attracted in a case where the trolley is attached and there is no insurance for the trolley. A third party's claim against the insurer is sustainable for the only reason that none of the claimants was a person, who was using the trolley. They were in yet another vehicle and if it was the tractor which had caused the accident, then the liability is squarely attracted.

(2.) All the appeals are frivolous. They deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.