FAO No.2965 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2965 of 2002 Date of Decision. 01.10.2010 National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-II, SCO 337- 340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through Sh. L.P. Arora, Assistant Administrative Officer ......Appellant Versus Sohan Lal son of Chhaju Ram and others ......Respondents Present: Mr.R.M. Suri, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is on appeal challenging the liability on the ground that what had been insured with the insurance company was an Eicher Tractor but the accident as narrated by the claimants was that the trailer which was attached to the tractor turned turtle when the driver of the insured's tractor took a sudden turn. It hit against the wall and a person sitting by the wall got killed. The contention of the insurer was that only the tractor had been insured and the trailer was not insured and therefore, the liability could not be fastened on the insurer. 2. The learned counsel points out that tractor and trailer have two different purposes and they have been covered by distinct FAO No.2965 of 2002 -2- definitions under the Motor Vehicles Act under Sections 2(44) and 2 (46). In so far an insurer could be made liable, it should also be shown that the trailer was also insured, for in this case it is impact of the trailer on the wall that has resulted in the accident. 3. I have no difficulty in accepting the contention that normally the insurer is liable to answer only a claim arising out of a negligent act of the driver of the vehicle, which is properly insured. The issue in this case is what is proximate cause for the death. If the unlatching of the trailer attached to the tractor has resulted by a negligent act of the driver of the tractor then the insurance company cannot escape liability by only saying that the trailer was not insured. The effect of want of insurance for a trailer is essentially a question of fact. It is not wholly without precedent for situation similar to this have come through decisions of other Courts in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. In Gunti Devaiah Vs. Uaka Peddi Reddi 2004(III) ACJ 1881, the Court raised the question as to what was driven rashly and negligently. A trailer cannot propel itself and it becomes a goods carriage if it attached to a tractor. A tractor by itself may not be a passenger vehicle but the moment it is attached to a trailer the combination becomes a goods carriage. If the trailer did not have a separate driving system, it was only propelled by the insured's tractor. The fact that the trailer dashed against the wall cannot be material for such an impact on the wall by the trailer arose out of the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. There have been however different view points expressed by the Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Company FAO No.2965 of 2002 -3- Limited Vs. D. Laxmanan in 2007 ACJ 536 and still later judgment in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shekanappa 2008 ACJ 243. I would prefer the former view held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, for it is more proximate to the facts involved in this case. The question that has to be raised invariably for motor accident situations is who caused the accident and not what caused the accident. The involvement of a motor vehicle is all that we have to see. A contrivance attached to a motor vehicle, which was insured and the driver, who drove the motor vehicle being negligent would be sufficient factors to make the insurer liable. I, therefore, confirm the view taken by the Tribunal and hold the insurer liable. 4. The appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 01, 2010 Pankaj*