NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the appeals are connected as they arise out of the claim of compensation for death of a driver and a passenger in a jeep. The claims were at the instance of the respective representatives of the deceased persons. The accident was on account of a collision between jeep and a tractor attached to a trailer. The Tribunal found the negligence of the driver of the tractor as having been established and ordered compensation to be paid by the insurer of the tractor. The appeals by the New India Assurance Company are FAO Nos. 135 and 72 of 1994 and FAO No. 1677 of 1993 is the cross appeal by the claimants.

(2.) The other point that is urged by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that it was brought out in evidence that the insurance policy had a cover to an accident involving the tractor only and the trolley that was attached to the tractor had not been insured. The contentions on behalf of the insurer were: Since the accident itself was by the result of a collision with the trolley, the Insurance Company could not be stated to be responsible for the consequences of the accident involving the trolley; A tractor itself is a mechanical contrivance that cannot carry persons or goods without a trolley being attached to it. The liability for an insurer for any accident that involves the use of the tractor and trolley would arise appropriately only in situations where both the tractor and the trolley are insured and premium paid as per the IMT. In this case it has been brought on record that the premium had not been paid and the insurance had not been taken for a trolley attached to the tractor. This, in the manner canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents, will have a bearing for consideration of the issue of liability particularly of the application of the principle to indemnify the insured. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that so far as the claim emanates from a third party who is entitled to proceed against the Insurance Company in every situation where the insured's vehicle is involved, the benefit that the Insurance Company could obtain would be only to deny to the insured a right of indemnity and allow for recovery of the claim from the insured. As far as the third parties are concerned, the respondents' counsel would argue that they shall be entitled to enforce the claim against the insurer and the insurer in turn will have a right to obtain recovery of the amount to the extent to which it is indemnified.

(3.) Some of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are required to be examined to identify whether a trailer which is attached to the tractor is statutorily required to be registered with the authorities under the Act to secure a distinct registration number and whether there is any necessity for having a policy of insurance for a tractor attached to a trailer. The definition of the "tractor" and the "trailer" are also essential to know the particulars of use as the Act contemplates. "Tractor" is defined under Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act which is reproduced as under:-