IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.199 of 2005 BALIRAM SINGH, S/o. late Jamadar Singh, r/o. village and P.O. Dangasi, P.S. Sidhwaliya, Distt. Gopalganj --------------------------(Appellant) Versus 1. SHEORIKHIYA DEVI @ Mst. Suratiya Kumar, w/o. late Paras Rajbhar @ Paras, 2. Koshali Devi, 3. Shushila Devi, 4. Sunaina Devi, 5. Kunti Devi, 6. Gulabi Devi, Srl. No.2 to 6 are daughters of late Paras Rajbhar @ Paras. 7. Indu Kumari, 8. Munna Kumar @ Bikan Kumar, 9. Dharmendra Kumar, Srl. No.7 to 9 are minor daughter and sons of late Paras Rajbhar @ Paras under the guardianship of their mother respondent No.1. Srl. Nos.1 to 9 are r/o. village-Melahibi Tola, Darauli, P.S. Darauli, District-Siwan. -----------------------------(Respondents) 10. Sanjay Singh, s/o. Ram Parvesh Singh, r/o. village- Talimapur, P.S. Jamo Bazar, Distt. Siwan, ------------------------ Respondent. 11. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Siwan Branch, Siwan. --------------------- Respondent. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Pd. Singh, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 9:Mr. Chandra Kant …. Advocate. Counsel for Respondent No.11: Mr. K.K. Sinha, ……Advocate. ----------- 14 11.11.2008 This appeal is against the order dated 11.02.2005 of the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Siwan passed in M.V. Claim Case No.11 of 2002, whereby ad interim compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) has been 2 allowed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to be paid by the appellant, the owner of the Tractor due to the death of the husband of the claimant, who died in an accident which was caused by the overturning of the trailor in which the deceased and one another were traveling and which trailor was attached to the tractor which had also overturned as a result of rash and negligent driving. 2. The trailor attached to the tractor was carrying creepers of Parwal vegetable and the deceased and Baban Mallah were in the trailor which was loaded with the creepers and while the tractor was going with the trailor, the trailor overturned due to the driver’s rash and negligent driving. In that accident the deceased was injured and he succumbed to the injuries. Baban Mallah, who was also in the trailor had lodged an F.I.R. with regard to the accident and in his F.I.R. he had stated that he had hired the tractor and trailor to carry the creepers of Parwal vegetable from Jamo Bazar to their village. In course of the hearing on the claim case a petition for interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act was filed. Respondent No.11 resisted the claim on the ground that 3 the vehicle i.e., the tractor had been registered as a tractor and it had also been insured as a tractor for agricultural purpose only. The respondent No.11 also filed the insurance policy which mentioned the description of the tractor with specific indications that it was insured for agricultural purpose only. The insurance company also took this plea that the tractor had been insured for its use for agricultural purpose only but the same was being used as a goods carrier for reward that is on hire by attaching a trailor to it which was not permissible under the policy and which amounted to a breach of the conditions of the policy. Hence, the insurance company was not liable for the loss or damages caused by way of the use of the trailor. The learned Claims Tribunal being satisfied with the plea of the Insurance Company ordered for the payment of the interim compensation by the owner of the vehicle, the appellant here. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tractor was covered under the insurance policy at the relevant time and that due to the accident having been caused by way of the use of the trailor attached to it the insurance company cannot deny its liability. 4 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the respondent No.11 referred to Section 61 of the Act which provides for separate registration of trailor with further provisions that the registration number as assigned to the trailor will also separately indicate the number of the motor vehicle to which it has to be attached and used and that the motor vehicle will also correspondingly display on its side the registration number of the trailor which it has been authorized to draw. Referring this provisions it was pointed out that there is nothing to show that the tractor was authorized to carry or pull any trailor with it nor the owner, the appellant here, has been able to show that the trailor which at the relevant time was being pulled by the tractor has been separately registered in the shape that the concerned tractor was authorized to draw the trailor. It was also submitted that the tractor had been exclusively insured under the policy for agricultural purpose only but it was being used as a goods carrier in view of the categorical statement of the informant Baban Mallah that he had hired the tractor and trailor for the purpose of carrying creepers of Parwal vegetable to his village, hence, there was categorical violation of the terms of 5 the policy and that in such circumstances the insured was not liable for any compensation and the same had to be paid by the owner of the vehicle only. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant cited the judgment of this Court in case of Kanhai Roy and others V. Dharmpal and others reported in 2001(2) PCCR page-6. In that case an accident had been caused by a truck. At the time of deciding claim for interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act, the insurance company denied its liability on the ground that the vehicle was not being driven by an authorized driver. Owner of the vehicle had produced the insurance policy which covered the vehicle at the relevant time. The owner had also pleaded that the vehicle was being driven by an authorized driver but the insurance company was disputing it. In these circumstances, this court held that at that stage when the owner had produced the insurance policy, the insurance company cannot deny its liability to pay interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act. But the facts of the instant case before this Court is quite different, in the instant case the insurance company has denied its liability on the ground that the vehicle was not at all used for the purpose, 6 it had been insured and thus there was grave breaches of the terms of the policy, inasmuch as, there was neither registration of the trailor nor its coverage under the policy. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further cited the case of Naga Shetty V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And others reported in (2001) 8 S.C.C. 56. In that case accident had been caused by a tractor and trailor attached to the tractor and the insurance company had denied its liability on the ground that the driver of the tractor had license simplicitor as a driver of the tractor only and it had no license to carry the goods carrier which was being driven by him due to the reason that the tractor and trailor was being used as a goods carrier at the relevant time of accident. There was no dispute in that case that the insurance policy did not cover the use of the tractor and trailor for the purpose of carriage of goods. In those situations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that simply on the ground that the driver of the tractor had a license simplicitor as a driver of the tractor the Insurance Company cannot deny its liability due to the reason that the tractor had a trailor and it had a lawful occasion to be used as a goods carrier also. 7 7. But the facts of the instant case before this Court are different; the tractor was registered and was also covered under the insurance policy as a tractor to be used for agricultural purpose only. The tractor was neither registered with any trailor nor the insurance coverage included any provision for its use with any trailor. In course of hearing before this Court learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurance company had taken a premium for the use of the trailor also but this fact was clearly denied by the learned counsel for the insurance company who submitted that in the written statement as filed by the insurance company before the claims Tribunal, the insurance company has specifically denied that the insurance policy did not include the coverage of any tractor. Learned counsel for the insurance company also pointed that the appellant, the owner of the tractor had filed his written statement before the Claims Tribunal but in the written statement he has not taken this specific plea that he had paid any amount for the coverage of the use of the tractor with the trailor. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company cited the decision in the case of United India Insurance Company 8 Ltd. V. Serjerao and others reported in 2008 (1) P.L.J.R. page- 126 (S.C.). The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on its another judgment in the case of Smt. Yallwwa and others V. National Insurance Co. Ltd and another reported in 2007(8) SCALE 77 has held that the Insurance Company has no liability in respect of persons traveling in the trolley of a tractor. Thus, there is categorical decision on this point that when the tractor has got the insurance coverage for its use for agricultural purpose only. The insurance company will not have any liability at least for the payment of interim compensation in the facts of this case that the accident had been caused by a trailor attached to the tractor and that the trailor had no registration under the M.V. Act with any authority or permission to be used with the tractor for the purpose of carriage of goods for hire or gain. In such view of the matters, I find no reason to make any interference with the order under appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)