UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ANITA SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application is filed for review of the judgment by this Court in bunch case FAO No. 929 of 2009 exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground that where there existed no policy of insurance by payment of premium for a trailer attached to a tractor and hence, the Insurance Company would not be liable. The review is sought on the ground that the issue was not argued by the counsel although set as one of the grounds and, therefore, the applicant had no occasion to submit the arguments.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that the point has been answered against the Insurance Company by a judgment of this Court in "United India Insurance Company v. Pritpal Singh and others, 1996(2) R.R.R. 335 : 1996(2) PLR 49". In that case, the accident took place with the trolley and not with the tractor and the contention of the Insurance Company was that since the trolley was not insured, thus, the Insurance Company was not liable. The Division Bench held that even though a trailer may be drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself is not a motor vehicle and both the tractor and the trailer taken together would constitute a transport vehicle. If consequently, there was a policy of insurance for a tractor as a motor vehicle, it would enure to the claim arising out of an accident involving the trailer attached to the insured tractor.

(3.) THERE are several judgments of various Courts which have examined the liability of the Insurer for accidents involving trailers even when no independent premium had been paid for the trailer. A later judgment of this Court in "United India Insurance v. Surinder and others, 2006 ACJ 1285" held, in relation to a tractor, which was insured comprehensively for agricultural purposes, that a tractor being not designed to carry any load without equipment to mean that an accident caused by even a trailer attached to a tractor would make the insurer liable, no matter that premium for trailer has been paid or not. The other decision which takes the same line of reason are "Gunti Devaiah and others v. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others, 2004(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 178 : 2004 ACJ 1881". The Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment was in the context of workmen, who were travelling in the trailer attached to the tractor as loadsmen claiming damages for the motor accident against the insurer of the tractor. The Andhra Pradesh High Court reasoned that a compulsory insurance for workmen under Section 147 will extend to them a right of enforcement of claimants against the Insurance Company. The Gujarat High Court has also subscribed to a similar view in "United India Insurance Company Limited v. Manjulaben Purshottamdas Patel and others, 1994 ACJ 740". The Court has held that a tractor and the trailer could not be treated as separate vehicles and that by driving the tractor rashly and negligently, the Insurer would be liable to a third party even though trailer is not insured. The Karnataka High Court took a similar view in "United India Insurance Company Limited v. Koduru Bhagyamma and others, 2009 ACJ 514".