Gujarat High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Rameshbhai Manharbhai Vasava on 4 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2195 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE --Sd/-
======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
======================================
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
RAMESHBHAI MANHARBHAI VASAVA & ORS.
======================================
Appearance:
MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MOHSIN M HAKIM(5396) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5,6
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 04/05/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant - insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30th April, 2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Vadodara in MACP Page 1 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined no.2034 of 2002.
2. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. The original claimants have been held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,48,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization from the original opponents jointly and severally with proportionate cost. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the appellant - insurance company.
3. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court vide order dated 20th October, 2016 has admitted the appeal. In the interim application for stay filed by the applicant-appellant - insurance company, this Court vide order dated 20th October, 2016 had passed a conditional order of Page 2 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined stay against the impugned judgment and award, subject to the deposit of the entire award amount with the concerned Tribunal. Further directions were issued to the Tribunal to disburse 30% of the aforesaid amount in favour of the claimants. The remaining 70% of the deposited amount was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit scheme in the name of the claimants with any nationalized bank. The periodical interest was permitted to be withdrawn by the original claimants, and the FDRs were directed to be renewed from time to time, which were made subject to the outcome of the appeal.
4. Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing on caveat, has waived notice of admission of appeal. The record and proceedings being made available, with the able assistance of learned advocates on record for the respective parties, the appeal is peremptorily heard finally. Page 3 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined
5. Mr. Digvijaysing Bisht, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Rituraj M. Meena, learned advocate on record for the appellant - insurance company and has assailed the impugned judgment and award by disputing the liability to pay the amount of compensation.
5.1 Learned advocate at the outset has invited my attention to the manner in which the accident was reported. It was submitted that, admittedly, the appellant - insurance company is the insurance company of the trailer which was attached to the tractor whereas the tractor is not insured at the time of accident. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, has held the driver of the tractor solely negligent towards the occurrence of the accident. It was also contended that admittedly the labourers were sitting on the tractor and not on the trailer. In this regard, the attention of this Court was invited to the contents of the FIR produced on record. With such facts evident on record, it was submitted Page 4 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined that the appellant, being the insurance company of the trailer, could not have been fastened with the liability to pay any amount of compensation. He has therefore urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award and to exonerate the appellant - insurance company from its liability to pay compensation.
6. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - original claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence of the claimant (Exh.31) as well as the FIR and the panchnama produced on record. On appreciation of the aforesaid evidence on record, the Tribunal has observed that in cross-examination, the claimant has admitted that he, along with his wife, were sitting inside the trolley. However, he has no evidence to justify the same. As against the aforesaid evidence, the evidence of the officer of the insurance company suggests that the premium was accepted to cover the risk of three laborers. Considering the Page 5 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined fact that the tractor was attached to the trolley, the Tribunal had treated it as one vehicle, and therefore the defense raised by the insurance company was rightly not accepted. It was submitted that the fact remains that the deceased were traveling in the vehicle (tractor-trolley) and the vehicle was loaded with sugarcane as evident from the panchnama produced on record. Learned advocate had further submitted that, admittedly, the policy produced on record was a Kishan Package Policy and the vehicle was subjected to agricultural use and therefore there is no violation of any provisions of the Act or rules or the terms and conditions of the policy. It was pointed-out that the officer of the insurance company has been examined as witness and in his examination-in-chief affidavit recorded at Exh. 47, he has stated that the policy was issued in respect of the trailer involved in the accident. In cross-examination, said witness has admitted that a premium of Rs.75/- has been realized for risk coverage of three labourers. With such evidence on record, no error can be Page 6 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined found with the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal holding the appellant - insurance company liable to pay compensation. 6.1 Learned advocate placed reliance upon the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Santokben Anupsinh Chauhan Vs. Sursingh Motibhai Baraiya, reported in 2016 (O) ACJ 2367. The attention of this Court was invited to the facts of the case to point-out that the accident had taken place because the tractor was driven rashly and at an excessive speed. It was also noticed that the joint by which the trailer was attached to the tractor was defective. As a result, the trailer got detached from the tractor, and one of the wheels of the trailer had run over the deceased who was standing on the roadside. It was further pointed-out that the tractor was not insured, but the trailer was insured. The question arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was as to whether the insurance company of the trailer could be held liable to satisfy the award Page 7 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined either in full or in part? The attention of this Court was invited to the relevant observations. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the definition of the term "motor vehicle" as defined under Section 2(28) and "tractor" as defined under Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the definition of the term "trailer" as defined under Section 2(46) of the Act of 1988. Considering the aforesaid provisions, it was noted that the term "motor vehicle" has to be read in context with the use of the vehicle. The Court also noted that the trailer was distinctly defined under Section 2(46) of the Act, by virtue of Section 2(28) of the Act, it was held that a trailer, when attached to a mechanically propelled vehicle would become a motor vehicle. The Court had therefore not accepted the contention raised by the insurance company that the trailer cannot be treated as a motor vehicle. As regards, risk coverage is concerned, having treated it as a one vehicle, learned Judge upon appreciation of the terms and conditions Page 8 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined of the policy held the insurance company of the trailer liable to pay the amount of compensation by observing that it cannot be treated as a case where two separate vehicles were involved in the accident, where the liability could be segregated even for the inter-se. The Court noted that it has to be treated as a case where the driver of the tractor with trailer acted negligently. On the aspect of apportioning the liability is concerned, the Court had taken into consideration the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., and others, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 273. Thus, holding the claimant entitled to recover the amount of compensation from either of joint tortfeasors.
6.2 Learned advocate has further placed reliance upon the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. SMT. Honnamma & Ors. reported in AIR 2025 SC 2641. The Page 9 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined attention of this Court was invited to the facts of the case to point-out that the deceased was travelling as a coolie in a tractor and trailer, which was on way to unload soil. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, the tractor and trailer toppled causing injuries to the deceased. The Tribunal had allowed the claim petition of the claimants, holding the original opponents liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal held that risk to employees of the tractor - trailer was not statutorily covered under Section 147(1)(b) of the Act of 1988, and had thereby fastened the liability to satisfy the award on the owner and driver of the vehicle. The claimants approached in appeal praying for enhancement of compensation. The High Court, while accepting their appeal for enhancement, further fastened the liability of compensation on the insurance company. The appeal was therefore preferred by the appellant - insurance company before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contention was raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the insurance Page 10 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined policy did not extend any coverage either to the trailer or the employees of the owner or any passenger travelling on the trailer. Learned advocate had pointed-out that it was a case where the tractor was insured and the trolley was not insured. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the undisputed facts that the trailer was being pulled by / attached to the tractor and the trailer on which the deceased was present had turned turtle/upturned resulting in his death. Having noted the aforesaid undisputed facts, the Court further noted that the tractor was insured with the insurance company, the main cause of accident was the tractor which was pulling / driving / moving the trailer and in such sequence the trailer upturned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court therefore distinguished the facts of the case as against the reference made to the earlier decision in the case of Dhondubai Vs. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude Since Deceased Through His LRs & Ors AIR Online (2020) 3 SC 1383 and has taken into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Page 11 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 2008 NOC 572 which held that no separate insurance is required for the trailer when it is attached to the insured tractor, as it becomes a part of the tractor. Considering the provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988, more particularly Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court had agreed with the view expressed by the High Court on the extent of liability fastened on the appellant
- insurance company.
7. Learned advocate had therefore submitted that even without entering into the controversy as to whether the deceased was sitting in a tractor or a trolley, the tractor- trolley being treated as a vehicle and considering the provisions of Section 147 of the Act of 1988 and the aforesaid principles laid down by the Court, the appellant - insurance company may not be exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. He has therefore urged this Court to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the order passed by the Tribunal. Page 12 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined
8. In rejoinder, learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company had submitted that as evident from the schedule of premium, there was breach of terms and conditions of the policy inasmuch as the trailer was permitted to be used for agricultural operations only when attached with tractor having registration no.GJ-6 HH-8393, whereas admittedly the tractor involved in the accident is different from the one which was permitted. He has further submitted that considering the panchnama of the place of accident, it is evident that the investigation officer, as recorded, has expressed it as the root cause of the accident. He has therefore submitted that there is evidence on record which validates the defense raised by the insurance company about breach and terms of the policy. He has therefore prayed for exoneration from payment of compensation.
9. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have carefully considered their Page 13 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined arguments in light of the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal. I have also gone through the record and proceedings, the relevant material on record. I have also taken into consideration the various authorities relied upon by the learned advocates on record. The short question which arises for consideration of this Court in the present appeal is as to whether the Tribunal committed any error in holding the insurance company of the trailer liable to satisfy the award, while adjudicating the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in the facts of the case and the evidence brought on record?
10. Before examining the merits of the appeal, looking at the controversy involved, it would be appropriate to take into consideration the manner in which the accident had taken place.
10.1 In the claim petition, the claimants have pleaded that on 25th October, 2002, the deceased Manjulaben Rameshbhai Page 14 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined Vasava had gone to attend agriculture labour work for taking crop of sugarcane and to load sugarcane crop in the trolley bearing registration no.GJ-6 W-4918, which was attached to the tractor bearing registration no.GJ-6 A-9600. The applicant
- claimant along with the deceased and other labourers was traveling in the said tractor-trailer. Thus, it was pleaded that the claimant along with the deceased was travelling as agriculture labourer on the tractor along with the sugarcane. When they had approached from the field on the main side of the road near Vemardi village, the driver of the tractor, who was driving the tractor attached with the trolley in excessive speed and in a negligent manner had lost control over the said vehicle. As a result, both, the tractor and the trolley, had turned turtle thereby causing grievous injuries to the deceased and the other laborers who were in the vehicle. 10.2 As against the aforesaid case pleaded in the original claim petition, if one looks at the FIR produced at Mark-5/1 Page 15 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined (FIR C.R. No. I-115 of 2002), it appears that the FIR was registered on information given by the Head Constable on 25 th October, 2002 posted at the Government Hospital. Pursuant to preliminary inquiry carried-out by the Head Constable, it was reported that the tractor bearing registration no.GJ-6 A- 9600 was carrying sugarcane and when the said tractor had reached near Vemardi village on Karwani road, the tractor had got turtled, as a result the labourers sitting on the tractor had sustained grievous injuries and have been hospitalized. The said complaint has been filed against the driver of the tractor for the offenses under Sections 279, 337, and 304A of the IPC read with Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Pursuant to the registration of the said FIR, an investigation has been carried-out by the ASI attached to Ravpura Police Station. The panchnama drawn by the Investigating Officer of the place of accident has been produced on record at Mark-5/3. On appreciation of the content of the said panchnama, it indicates the involvement of Page 16 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined the tractor bearing registration no.GJ-6 A-9600 and the trolley bearing registration no.GJ-6 W-4918. The said panchnama, further mentions that the trolley is an old model vehicle. The point which connects the trolley to the tractor was found damaged. The cause of the trolley being turtle as suggested by the Investigating Officer was because of the fact that the trolley got detached from the said point. The panchnama also mentions about the sugarcane being carried in the trolley. As against the aforesaid evidence on record, if one looks at the examination-in-chief affidavit of the claimant (Exh.24), the claimant has deposed that they were engaged by the opponent nos.1 and 2 as agricultural labourers and since the crop of sugarcane was to be shifted to another place, they have loaded the crop on tractor bearing registration no.GJ-6 A-9600 attached with trolley bearing registration no.GJ-6 W-4918. He has also deposed that the driver of the tractor was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he had lost control, resulting into an accident causing injuries to Page 17 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined the labourers. The deceased had succumbed to the fatal injuries caused due to the said accident. In his cross- examination, he has fairly conceded to the fact that he has not witnessed the accident and had heard about the manner in which the accident had taken place. He has categorically denied the suggestion put by counsel for the respondent - insurance company that all were sitting on tractor at time of accident. He has further clarified that few were sitting on the trolley with sugarcane crops. He has admitted in cross- examination that he has no evidence to show that he along with his wife had sat on a tractor-trolley and were engaged as labourers. He has also denied the suggestion that his wife was carried as a passenger in the tractor.
10.3 Having appreciated the relevant evidence, the foundational facts about involvement of the tractor and of the insured vehicle trolley has been established on record. The claimants have also established that the deceased was Page 18 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined travelling on the tractor-trolley being engaged as agricultural labourer by the opponents no.1 and 2 who are the owners of the respective vehicles involved in the accident. The aforesaid case put forward by the claimants gets corroborated from the fact that sugarcane crop was found lying at the scene of panchanama. Thus, the defense raised about the deceased being a gratuitous passenger has rightly not been accepted by the Tribunal. On the issue of negligence, the FIR filed against the driver of the tractor involved in the accident has culminated into filing of charge-sheet for the offence alleged. The root cause of the accident thus, as emerged on record is the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor which has resulted in upside down / turtle of the trolley as well, consequently leading to the detachment of the trolley from the tractor.
11. Now, as regards insurance company's liability incurred to indemnify the owner, in terms of the policy is concerned, admittedly, the policy is issued for use of trolley for Page 19 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined agricultural operations. The policy issued is Kishan package policy. It also covers the risk of three labourers travelling on the trolley. The liability has been disputed by the appellant - insurance company on the ground that the trolley has been used in violation of terms and conditions of the policy by permitting the use of trolley in conjunction with a tractor other than agreed and on the ground that the tractor involved was not insured. In view of the guiding principles laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Santokben Anupsinh Chauhan Vs. Sursingh Motibhai Baraiya (supra), the definition of the terms "motor vehicle"
"trolley" when appreciated in light of section 147 of the Act of 1988, the tractor-trolley when attached together and in use in conjunction shall be treated as a one 'vehicle' for the purpose of defining the liability of the insurance company. In the peculiar circumstances, where the trailer would always be led by the driver of the tractor, the Court has held that the liability to compensation of the insured has arisen by the use Page 20 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined of both the tractor and the trailer and therefore both the insurance companies, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would be liable to satisfy the claim of the claimants. The Court relying upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Parsottambhai Kanbhai vs. Panchiben @ Ratanben reported in 1977 ACJ 441, negatived the contention of learned counsel representing the insurance company of the trailer that the trailer being not a prime mover, not having locomotion, the insurance company of the trailer would not be liable as the accident occurred when the trailer was being pulled by the tractor and the driver of the tractor was shown to be negligent. Considering the aforesaid ratio in the facts of the case, the ground raised by the appellant - insurance company disputing the liability of the driver of the tractor being negligent and not the trailer, deserves to be rejected.
12. Notably, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honnamma (supra), agreed with the view expressed by the Page 21 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined Hon'ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadapa District Vs. Koduru Bhagyamma, 2007 SCC OnLine AP 830, which opined :
'1. This case has come before this Court on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court as it was contended before the learned Single Judge by the appellant that as the trailer in which the deceased was travelling was not insured, although it was attached to the tractor which was insured, therefore no liability could be fastened upon the insurer.
xxx
13. Now on analysis of these judgments and the provisions of law which have been quoted above, we feel that the law has been correctly appreciated by a learned Single Judge of this Court inGunti Devaiahv.Vaka Peddi Reddy(supra) and the reasons given by him are sufficient to hold that under the Motor Vehicles Act no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer and when the trailer is attached to the tractor which is insured, it becomes the part of the tractor. We reproduce the Para 26 of the said judgment as under: "The word "vehicle" mentioned in Section 147 is co-relatable to the word motor vehicles, which is stipulated in Section 146. Therefore, the expression vehicle wherever appearing in Chapter X(XI) has to be only read as motor vehicle. The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortuous liability and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is a sine quo non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a motor vehicle namely a tractor or a like self-propelled vehicles. Therefore, the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent manner would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the motor vehicle which controls movement of the tractor and in case of the negligence driving of the trailer or the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for Page 22 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined payment of compensation. But, since the trailer is attached can it be said that trailer should also be independently insured so as to avoid the liability of compensation in case of rash and negligent driving by the driver. That contingency would not arise, as it is only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes, it is treated as a goods vehicle. But, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated. When the trailer is attached to the tractor it becomes a tractor-trailer. There is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk. The reasons are obvious that it cannot be driven by the driver as in the case of motor vehicles or tractors. Thus, a separate distinction has been drawn between the motor vehicle and a vehicle i.e., visible in all the definitions and more especially in Chapter XI. The same situation also persists in Chapter X in case of no fault liability wherein it has been stated that whether a death or a permanent disability of any person has been resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles and there is no reference to vehicle as such. This aspect was never considered in any of the decisions relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company and also for other side."' (underlined in original; emphasis supplied by us through the bold highlight)
13. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no separate insurance coverage is required qua the trolley to cover third party risk. At the same time, once a trolley is attached to the tractor, it is treated as a motor vehicle, the statutory liability arises. In the situation where the tractor-trolley is being used as a motor vehicle, the trailer is permitted to be used for agricultural operations which includes the boarding of the Page 23 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined labourers for the purpose of loading and unloading the goods. The trailer had got detached from the tractor and turned turtle, in which the deceased was sitting as labourer. Thus, the accident has arisen out of use of the trailer which was insured with the appellant - insurance company. Even otherwise, the claimants are entitled to seek compensation from both, the owners and the insurance company of the vehicles involved in the accident. In my view, the insurance company of such a vehicle (tractor / trailer) is bound to indemnify in case of death or permanent disability of any person resulting from an accident arising out of use of such a motor vehicle.
14. Having held so, the dispute raised with regard to liability of the insurance company on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of policy, on the ground that the use of the trolley with tractor other than the tractor permitted to be used has not been established by the insurance company by leading any cogent evidence on record. Merely because the Page 24 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined Investigating Officer while recording pachnama has expressed that the root cause of accident is the detachment of trailer from tractor having weak point of attachment, itself is not sufficient to accept the fact that the same has contributed to the occurrence of accident. On the contrary, it is not disputed that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The appellant - insurance company has failed to examine the Investigating Officer to elicit such evidence on record.
15. In view of settled law as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singh, reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297, the insurance companies who seek exoneration from their liability to pay compensation, are not only required to establish the available defence(s) raised in the such proceedings, but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle, in absence thereof, the insurance company cannot be exonerated. In absence of any evidence being brought on Page 25 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined record to establish not only the breach of terms and conditions of policy but breach on part of the owner of the insured vehicle, the appellant - insurance company's plea of exoneration from their liability to pay compensation cannot be accepted. In fact, the evidence of the officer of the insurance company (Exh.47) suggests that the appellant - insurance company has accepted additional premium of Rs.75/- to cover the risk of three coolies (labourers) and has thereby agreed to indemnify the owner of the insured vehicle towards death or permanent disability of the three labourers (coolies) carried on trailer to pay compensation if accidental injuries caused while the trailer is in use. Considering the above, even otherwise the insurance company cannot escape it's contractual liability to pay compensation to the claimants towards death of the deceased who was indisputably a labourer engaged by the owner of the trailer.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is hereby Page 26 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2195/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/05/2026 undefined dismissed. The Record and Proceeding are directed to be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith along with the writ of this judgment.
17. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed with the release and disbursement of the award amount in favour of the claimants, subject to due verification and strictly in adherence with the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this regard. Let such aforesaid exercise be undertaken by the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD.../pd-30.04/fo-14.05 Page 27 of 27 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Thu May 14 2026 Downloaded on : Fri May 15 23:02:06 IST 2026