HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No.352 of 2001 JUDGMENT (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao): The appellant which is the insurance company seeks to assail the order dated 24-04-2001 in A.A.O.No.186 of 1997 of the learned Single Judge in dismissing appeal filed by it as against the award of compensation as per order and decree in O.P.No.331 of 1994, dated 13-12-1995 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. 2. The claim arises as a result of accident, which occurred on 25-12-1993 when the claimant was traveling in a tractor with its trailor bearing Regn. Nos.ABP-8892 and APO-4860. The total claim made was Rs.1.00 lakh. After regular trial, the Court below granted award of compensation of Rs.71,000/- against the appellant and R-1 and R-2.. Against the said award, the insurance company preferred the appeal before this Court raising two points viz., a) whether the trailer can be said to be form and part of tractor and is to be considered as motor vehicle? and b) If so, whether the insurer can deny the liability to pay the compensation? After considering the evidence as well as the material available on record, the learned Single Judge of this Court has rightly held that the trailer was insured with the appellant and that the trailer is a ‘motor vehicle’ within the meaning of the definition given under Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was used in a public place and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed this letters patent appeal. The Division Bench of this Court in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. KODURU BHAGYAMMA[1], while considering the very same question and also the provisions of Sections 2 (28), 2 (44) and 2 (46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held that when a trailer is attached to a tractor, which is a motor vehicle and which is insured, it becomes part of tractor and therefore, no separate insurance is required for a trailer under the Act. It was further held that the insurer cannot deny its liability to pay compensation on the ground that trailer was not insured even though it was attached to the tractor which was insured. Accordingly, the insurance company was made liable and the principles laid down in J. KOTIRATNAMM’s case (1 supra) were overruled. 3. In view of the same, it is held that the insurance company is liable and admittedly at the time of accident, the claimant was travelling in the trailer. 4. Coming to the other question as per quantum of compensation awarded, the learned Single Judge rightly found that the insurance company cannot question the same and which, in my considered view, is a reasonable and not excessive. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal need not be disturbed at all. Hence, we do not find any reason to come to the different conclusion. There are no merits in the appeal nor any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Date: 31st January 2011 _________________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD kvr [1] 2008(2) ALT 764 (D.B.)