THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.4164 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award, dated 28.08.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor, in O.P.No.195/1998. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 25.11.95 at about 2.30 p.m. while the petitioner was proceeding on Chittoor-Aragonda road, at Gangammagudi of Obanapalle village, the tractor and trailer bearing Nos. TNH 5857 and ADC 3742 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner. On account of that he suffered injuries. A case in Crime No.95 of 1995 was registered and the petitioner was aged about 24 years and earning Rs.35/- per day as a mason. He suffered several injuries. He spent substantial money towards treatment and expenses. He claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh. Third respondent, the present appellant, who alone contested the O.P. filed a written statement contending that the accident has taken place on account of the negligence of the petitioner herself, who suddenly crossed the road. The vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with R3. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred was to the rash and negligent driving by the 4th respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and if so, to what extent and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked apart from Ex.B1. Considering the material on record, the court below granted compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed by the third respondent-insurance company. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant-insurance company is not liable for compensation as tractor bearing No.TNH 5857 was not insured with the appellant and only the trailer was insured, that tractor and trailer are two independent vehicles with different registration numbers and when the tractor dashed the injured and when it is not insured, on account of the trailer being insured with the appellant, the appellant cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. 5. First of all this plea is not specifically taken in the written statement filed by the appellant before the lower court. The evidence of P.W.2 is that tractor as well as trailer both dashed the injured. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that first information report would not reveal the same. In FIR, details as to what portion of the vehicle hit the victim would not be mentioned, it would be mentioned simply as tractor hit the victim, no doubt, the presumption would be the front portion of the vehicle hit the victim, i.e., only the engine portion, which was not insured with the appellant. But the specific evidence of P.W.2 is that both portions have dashed the victim. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, such circumstance may not arise however the same is not impossible. Further more, when both tractor and trailer were jointly proceeding and when one portion of that vehicle hit the victim, it cannot be said that there is no involvement of other portion of the vehicle. When the tractor was being driven, it would be naturally propelled forward on account of the force of the trailer that is attached to it, particularly when the same is moving downward. In the circumstances, as long as there is no dispute about both the tractor and trailer being attached to each other at the time of accident and were moving jointly, it cannot be never said that there is no involvement of any portion of the vehicle in the accident. Such being the case, I see no merits in the appeal, the same fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 6% per annum through out. 6. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 21st October 2010, Rns