^.\^ Q. THE^ HIGHL CO^&T QF_JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR rCHHATTISGARH] MISC.APPEAL N0. 1 %''!—OF2004 BaOTSlon gg|?£J APPELLANT/ H&SURER RESPONDENTS/ qWNER[TRACTOR] OWNER[TROLLY| RBSPONDENTS/ [CLAIMANTS] ^' \6W- fe\; x€>^1^ ^^?^ •(/y iS^',-7 ,.,'^y ^/^ :y /National Insurance Co. Ltd., through it's Branch Manager, Branch OfEce, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS ^•1,. Kushal Selma, S/o Gopinath Selma, R/o Kamabandha, P. S. Mandirhasaud,Dist.Raipur [CG] ;^2. Arun Singh,S/o Krishna Kumar Singh, R/o Shiksha Colony Dangania, Dist. Raipur [CG] .3. Devendra Chaudhary, S/o ^ Ramayan Chaudhaiy, R/o ''Shiksha Colony Dangania, Tahsil 8s Dist. Raipur [CG] A. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Manager,Chawla Com. Sai Nagar, Raipur [C.G.] ^ §. Kaushalya Bai, aged about 35 Years,Wd/o Late Jankilal Sahu. ^6. Avinash Kumar, S/o Late Janki / Lal Sahu, aged about 15 years, ^ -^ 7. Ku.Roshni Sahu,D/o Late Janki ^ Lal Sahu, aged about 12 years, Respondent No.6 & 7 both being Minors through their legal Guardian-mother Kaushalya Bai, * ^$8. Urmila Sahu, aged about 45 / years, D/o Sewak Ram Sahu, ^~~^ 9. Sewak Ram Sahu, aged about 75 |2_ Years, ;.!.- , ;, ^-y? lO.Smt. Jagauti Bai, aged about 65 / Years, W/.o Sewak Ram Sahu, Resident No. 5 to 10 all residents Of Qtr. No. 126, Kanshiram Nagar, Telibandha, Raip.ur [Chhattisgarhj .-;i.3&i,ia.ia.:.•*«*>.>tei>^tsi(^e<i,Mti ilillBUINIW APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ ^" APPELLANT ^' RESPONDENTS M.A. No. 182/2004 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Kushal Salma and others DB:- Hon. Shri I.M. Quddusi 8s Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, JJ. PRESENT:- Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate, for the appeUant. Shri Vinay Harit, Sr. Adv6cate wifh Shri S. Tandan, Advocate, for fhe respondent No. 1 and 3. O RAL ORD ER (11-1-2011) Per N.K. Agarwal.J 1. The appellant/National Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the award dated 1-10-2003 passed by the Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipiir' in Claim Case No. 37/2002 whereby an amount of Rs. 7,82,OOO/- has been awarded to the claiinants holding the appellant/ Insurance Company also liable for its payment along with owner of fhe tractor. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26-3-2002, when Jankilal Sahu (since deceased) was going on his scooter bearing registration No. MP 23 MB 2450 on left side slowly from Raipur to village Kosrangi, a tractor bearing registration No. CG-04-A/8709, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by the appellant and trailer (trolley) No. MP 23/GA 0402, owned by the respondent No. 3 and insured by ~the respondent No. 4, being driven by respond/ent No. 1 Kusal Selma in a rash and negligent manner, dashed his'-ecooter, as a result of which, , JankUal Sahu sustained grievous injury and died. The accident was reported in Police Station Telibandha, Distt. Raipur, on the basis of which, the police registered offence under Section 279, 337,.338 and 304A ofI.P.C. against the respbndent No. 1. The claimants being wife, children, sister and parents of the deceased preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 30,00,OOO/- as compensation for the deafh ofthe deceased. 3. The appellant/insurance company denied the allegation of the claim petition.-It denied that the applicants are legal heirs of the deceased, Rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor resulting death of the deceased, aad income of the deceased was also denied. It further took a plea that at the time of accident neither Jankilal Sahu nor driver of the tractor had valid driving licence and insurance companies of both the vehicles are responsible for payment of compensation, if any. The respondents No. 1 and 2 also deriied the allegations of the claim petition. 4. The respondent No. 4/0riental Insurance Co. Ltd also denied the allegations of the claim petition. It was averred fhat there is a head on collision between the scooter and tractor, and the trailer (trolley) being not mechanicaUy propelled vehicle and is a part and partial of tractor, the insurer of the trailer (trolley) cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. 5. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, raaterial placed and evidence led, awarded an amount of Rs. 7,82,OOO/- in favour of the claimants as against fhe insurer, driver and owner of the tractor in question exonerating the owner and insurer of the trailer (trolley) from payment of compensation holding trailer as notrnechanically propelled vehicle and it is the tractor driver's 'negligence which caused the accident. Hence this appeal. . " 6. Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant would submit, leamed Tribunal recorded a finding while deciding the issue no.. 1 that the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving jaf the tractor .and trailer (trolley) by the driver as tractor U l- :-l yf—^ £'^ ^ and trailer (fa-olley) crossed over the deceased Jankilal therefore, learned Tribunal has erred in fastening liability of payment of corapensation only on the appellant/insurance company. The owner and insurer of the trailer (trolley) are also jointiy and severally liable along with the appellant. 7. On the other hand, Shri Harit, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant No. 4 would submit, trailer (trolley) being not niechanically propelled vehicle cannot be said to be motor vehicle and no award can be passed against the owner and insurer of the trolley. Furfher the dispute is essentially a dispute between two public undertakings and in view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of Oil and Natural G-as Commission and another -v- Collector of Central Excise reported in 1995 Supple (4) SCC 541, the matter should go first before the High Power Committee constituted by govemment in this behalf and without that, the appeal is not maintainable. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned and record of the Tribunal. 9. Following two questions arise for decision making in the instant appeal- (i) Whether the owner and insurer of the trailer (trolley) attached with the tractor can be charged with the liability of payment of compensation in motor accident cases due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor ? and (ii) Whether in such motor accident cases, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Comnitssion (Supra), the instant matter should go Grst to the High Power Committee constituted by the Govemment in this behalf ? c^ .311';^]!!:;].ll;^l;i;,,,^ <»c. ''"^ ^ ^' :^y./ v 10. Semi-trailer, tractor and trailer are separately defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Sections 2(39), 2(44) and 2(46) which reads as under:- (39) "semi-trailer" means a vehicle not mechanically propelled (other than a ta-ailer), which is intended to be connected to a m.otor vehicle and whieh is so constructed that a portion of it is super-imposed on, and a part of whose weight is borne by, that motor vehicle;] (44) "tractor" means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller; (46) "ta-ailer" means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle; 11. A tractor fitted with a trailer (ta-olley) may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The trailer attached to the ta-actor necessarily is required to be used fpr agricultural purpose unless registered otherwise. Tractor and trolley are registered separately and are having separate registration number with R.T.O. The tractor was insured by the appellant/insurance company whereas the trolley was insured by respondent No. 4/0riental Insurance Company. Policy has been issued by Oriental Insurance Company in Form 51 of the Central Motor Vehicle, 1988. The Oriental Insurance Company has issued policy in accordance with the proyfsions of Chapter X and XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When trailer (trolley) is attached with tractor, then in our opinion, if'becomes one vehicle. Of. course, one driver will drive the tractor as well as the trolley and if the tractor and trolley both are involved in the accident, then the owner of both the vehicles may be held liable for the tort committed by the tractor driver and both the • s3 ^.^? ^ ; .-"s rf ••.y""'-V -,* s i/ ^' '^ '^-^" companies issuing policies separately, one covering risk of tractor and other covering risk of traUer, may be held Uable jointly and severally. It is not correct to say that although the insurance company has insured the trolley under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but they are not liable to indemnify the insured. 12. So far as the other point raised by Shri Harit is concerned, the same is devoid of substance. Here in the instant case, it is not a matter where the dispute is between the two public bodies. Here the dispute is between the two persons i.e. owner of the tractor and the owner of the trolley and if they are held liable then the insurance companies shall be liable to indemnify their respective insured in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 147 offhe Motor Vehicles Act. 13. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, both the owners i.e. owner of the tractor and the tarailer (trolley) and insurers are jointly and severely liable for payment of compensation t6 the claimants. The appeal is allowed in part. The respondent No. 3 &nd 4 are also held liable jointly and severely along with the appellant for payment of compensation to the claimants. 14. In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, no order as to costs. Sd/- LM. Quddusi iTudge Sd/- N.K-Agarwal Judge ili"]lffl't