THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.861 of 2003 Date: 01-7-2010 Between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Nalgonda, Rep. by its Manager … Appellant/Respondent No.3 and 1. Kethavath Seetha and 5 others … Respondents/Petitioners 6. I.Bikshmaiah and another … Respondents/Respondents 1 and 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.861 of 2003 Oral Judgment: Heard Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant. 2. Appeal by the insurer challenging the order and decree, dated 07-9-2001, in O.P.No.977 of 1998, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, awarding a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- as claimed by the claimants. 3. The appellant herein is the insurer, respondents 1 to 6 are the claimants and respondents 7 and 8 are the insured. 4. The contentions raised by the learned standing counsel for the appellant are that – firstly, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who died in the accident; secondly, the insurance policy covers Tractor bearing No.AP24T-4848 and Trailor bearing No.AP24T- 4849 and further that, since the insurance will be given jointly to both the tractor and the trailor and inasmuch as, the claim was made with Tractor bearing No.APL-9324, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. In other words, it is his contention that the tractor and the trailor should be treated as ‘one unit’ and in the absence of both the tractor and the trailor as covered by the policy, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 6. Insofar as the first contention is concerned, it is the case of the claimants that when the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle on 05-02-1998 at about 11 p.m., he hit the stationed trailor of the tractor bearing No.APL-9324. 7. From the counters filed by the insurer before the Tribunal, it was contended that the tractor had some technical snag and as a result, the vehicle was stationed by the side of the road. 8. It is not in dispute that the trailor was carrying hay at the time of accident. In such circumstances, it is a known fact that a trailor carrying hay would be bulged extensively covering the major portion of the road and therefore, the Tribunal had believed the version of the claimants that the deceased could not see any lights of the vehicle coming in the opposite direction and as a result, hit the stationed trailor and died instantaneously. 9. It is natural that at that hour, heavy vehicles will be coming up with flood lights on the face of the vehicles coming in the opposite direction and it is quite possible to control the vehicles. In the instant case, it cannot be for sure said that there was negligence on the part of the deceased, particularly no precautions have been taken by the owner of the tractor and the trailor when the trailor was parked indicating that it was stationed. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly rejected the plea of the insurer that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and there is no irrationality in the said conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 10. Coming to the other aspect that the claim was made against Tractor No.APL-9324 with Trailor No.AP24T-4849 as ‘one unit’, if the trailor is tagged to another tractor, it cannot be said that the insurer is liable to pay compensation on the simple ground that only the trailor was insured but not both the tractor and the trailor. 11. In this regard, I am of the view that it is not in dispute that the motorcycle of the deceased had hit the stationed trailor but not the tractor from behind. Further, it is to be seen that the trailor bearing No.AP24T-4849 was insured with the present appellant-insurer. It is not justified to disown the claim by the appellant on the ground that only the trailor that was insured is present at the place of accident but not the tractor that was insured. 12. From the said contention, it appears that both the insured tractor and the trailor with combination shall be present and involved in the accident in order to have the liability fastened against the insurer. 13. The above contention cannot be accepted for the reason that though the tractor and the trailor were insured with the same insurer with combination, there is every likelihood in many cases that it is only the tractor that would be used for various purposes and the trailor would be used only when goods are to be transported. 14. In that process, some times any other tractor can be trucked to the trailor for the reason that both the tractor and the trailor are two different pieces and when it comes to taking an insurance policy, both the tractor and the trailor will be insured. 15. But when it comes to practicality, the owner of the tractor may not necessarily use the same trailor or the same trailor may not be trucked to the original tractor, which was insured. 16. In such peculiar circumstances, what is to be seen is that whether the trailor, with which the deceased had collided and died alone, has to be taken into consideration or not ? 17. In other words, it is only the trailor that is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of fastening the liability on the insurer. 18. If it is slightly put in a different way, if the trailor is admittedly insured with the insurer and the accident occurred because of the collision with the said trailor, it is to be treated that the trailor forms part of the entire vehicle i.e., the tractor and trailor. It cannot be seen as a separate unit so long as the trailor is admittedly insured with the insurer and the insurer cannot escape its liability on account of the fact that some other tractor, which was not insured, was trucked with the trailor. 19. It is brought to the notice of this court that in Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More[1] it was held that it is the vehicle that is in use should be treated as the vehicle involved in the accident. 20. Obviously, in the present case, it is only the trailor in the use, against which the motorcycle of the deceased hit and eventually he died. Admittedly, since the said trailor was insured with the insurer and was in use, the liability has to be essential for consideration against the insurer on the policy issued to such vehicle, which is in use. In the instant case, it is the trailor that is in use. 21. For the aforementioned reasons, I see no merit in the appeal and consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order under appeal. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 01st July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.861 of 2003 01st July, 2010. (Ak) [1] 1991 ACJ 777