Jawaharlal @APPELLANT@Hash Smt. Ghishi

The present appeals have been preferred to question the correctness of the order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Cases No.127/2010 and 128/10 whereby the liability to pay compensation have been fastened on the appellant only and

the insurance company as well as driver have been exonerated.

Brief facts of the case are that an accident took place on 10.11.2009. The deceased were travelling in a trolley with the stone slabs loaded in it. The

trolley was attached with a tractor. Due to the rash and negligent driving the tractor fell in the pit nearby the road in which the deceased Roshan died

on the spot while Mangilal got seriously injured and thereafter he died.Â

Separate claim petitions were filed to which the appellant filed reply before the Tribunal.Â

The learned Tribunal after framing the issues has decided the claim petition vide order dated 22.07.2015.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that fastening of the liability on the owner was uncalled for as the Insurance of the tractor covers the trolley

also. He further submits that the deceased were travelling on the trolley in furtherance of the agricultural work for erecting the stone slabs in the

field of the appellant. Since the work in question for erecting the stone slabs was for the preservation of the agriculture field therefore the purpose

for which the tractor was insured will cover the risk in present accident and thus, the liability should have been fastened on the insurance company.Â

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that the insurance cover note very clearly and categorically reflects that actually the

tractor alongwith driver was only insured by the insurance company and since the trolley was not covered by the insurance policy and the deceased

were travelling on the trolley as gratuitous passengers, therefore, the insurance company has rightly been exonerated by the learned Tribunal vide its

order dated 22.07.2015. He further submits that except driver, the insurance company is not liable for the risk of any person travelling on the

Tractor and Trolly.Â

Learned counsel for the respondents further relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Vs. Brij Mohan & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 56.Â

I have considered the submissions made at Bar and have gone through the order of the Tribunal as well as relevant record of the case.Â

It is an admitted position that the deceased were travelling in the tractor trolley and as per the policy and insurance cover note it is apparent on the

face of record that except tractor and its driver, the insurance company was not liable for covering the risk of trolley as well as other persons

travelling on the tractor and trolley.Â

The learned Tribunal in its order has rightly noted that the stone slabs were being carried in the tractor trolley were not in furtherance of agricultural

activities of the appellant. Neither it has been proved that the same were carried for the appellant himself in furtherance of agricultural activities.

The learned Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased persons were thus the gratuitous passengers and, therefore, risk was not

covered by the insurance company.Â

In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Brij Mohan & Ors. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that issue in great detail and

it is apposite to reproduce the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:

“8. The Tribunal in its award has, inter alia, noticed that the appellant herein had raised a specific defence, namely, the trolley was not insured. It

does not appear that the said contention of the appellant had been gone into. There is nothing on records to show that the owner of the tractor had

produced any insurance cover in respect of the trolley. It is furthermore not disputed that the tractor was insured only for the purpose of carrying out

agricultural works. The representative of the Insurance Company Mr. Hari Singh Meena on cross-examination merely accepted the suggestion that

cutting the earth and levelling the field with earth would be an agricultural work but respondent no.1 himself categorically stated in his claim petition

before the Tribunal stating that the earth had been dug and was being carried in the trolley to the brick klin. Evidently the earth was meant to be used

only for the purpose of manufacturing bricks. Digging of earth for the purpose of manufacture of bricks indisputably cannot amount to carrying out of

the agricultural work.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. V. Chinnamma &Ors. [(2004) 8 SCC 697], this Court held :-

An insurance for an owner of the goods or his authorised representative travelling in a vehicle became compulsory only with effect from 14-

111994 i.e. from the date of coming into force of amending Act 54 of 1994.

Furthermore, a tractor is not even a goodscarriage. The expression ‘goods carriage’ has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean ‘any

motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the

carriage of goods’. whereas ‘tractor’ has been defined in Section 2(44) to mean ‘a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry

any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a roadroller’. ‘Trailer’ has been defined in Section 2(46) to

mean ‘any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a sidecar, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle’.

A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may notanswer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The

tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural

purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural

produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean

that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used

to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to the market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any

agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer

would answer the description of ‘goods carriage’ as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the

decisions of this Court in Asha Rani and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24-11-1991 i.e. much prior to coming

into force of the 1994 amendment.â€​

Furthermore, respondent was not the owner ofthe tractor. He was also not the driver thereof. He was merely a passenger travelling on the trolley

attached to the tractor. His claim petition, therefore, could not have been allowed in view of the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co.

Ltd. v. Asha Rani & Ors. [(2003) 2 SCC 223] wherein the earlier decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [(2000) 1 SCC

237] was overruled. In Asha Rani it was, inter alia, held :-

Section 147 of the 1988 Act, inter alia, prescribes compulsory coverage against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of ‘public service

vehicle’. Proviso appended thereto categorically states that compulsory coverage in respect of drivers and conductors of public service vehicle

and employees carried in a goods vehicle would be limited to the liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It does not speak of any

passenger in a ‘goods carriage’.â€​

Therefore, in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court the gratuitous passengers/labourers travelling on the trolley of the tractor

are not covered by the insurance company for their risk. There is no liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation in the present case

and, therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the liability to pay compensation rests on the appellant and none other.Â

In view of whatever stated above, no interference is called for in the order 22.07.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Both the appeal fail and the same are hereby dismissed.