1. Heard Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants and Sri Chandra Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved of the award dated 01.08.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.5, Kushi Nagar, Place-Padrauna in M.A.C.P. No.100232 of 2013 on the sole ground that tractor having Registration No.U.P. 57-Q-2502 was insured for agricultural purposes and a trolly was attached to the same, when accident took place. It is submitted that there was no separate insurance for the trolly and on this ground Insurance Company has filed this appeal to depute its liability and seeking a direction that liability should be fastend on the owner of the driver of the tractor.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, in his turn submits that it has come on record that as has been discussed by the learned Claims Tribunal, that accident took place because of negligence of the driver of the tractor trolly, who had hit the motorcycle on which deceased was travelling from wrong side. It has nowhere been discussed and where evidence was led to the effect that tractor was being used for any purpose other than agriculture at the time of the accident.
4. It is submitted that in the light of the law laid down in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suman and others, passed in F.A.F.O. No.611 of 2013 on 06.03.2013, it has been held by Allahabad High Court that if, trolly is attached to a tractor and is being used for agricultural purpose, then no separate insurance is required.
5. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case of Markandey Singh Vs. Smt. Chanmuni Devi and another; 2008 (4) ALJ (NOC) 802 (ALL) decided liability of the Insurance Company in a motor accident claim holding that a motor vehicle can be used for social, domestic and pleasure purpose and insured's own business.
6. From above discussion it appears that law enunciated generally is that a tractor-trailer combination would constitute a motor vehicle and even a "Goods Carriage" under Section 2(47) if it is used as a vehicle for use in commercial purpose of transporting goods and would fall under Section 2(14) as a "Goods Carriage" for the reason that both, chassis and trailer attached would fall within the meaning of expression Motor Vehicle, hence in such a case, trailer attached to the tractor is to be separately registered and insured, but if at the relevant time it is not being used for any commercial purpose the trailer does not require separate insurance and registration.
7. In view of such facts, though several other grounds have been raised, but learned counsel for the appellant is concentrating only on one ground namely, non-insurance of the trolly, and that has already been decided in case of Smt. Suman and others (supra), this ground of not getting the trolly insured is not made out, therefore, appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021/Ashutosh