THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2035 of 2003 Being aggrieved against the Order in O.P.No.611 of 1998, dated 30.08.2001, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company contends that the Court below grossly erred in passing the award and fixing the liability against the appellant – Insurance Company though the appellant – Insurance company is not at all liable to pay compensation and that the Court below ought to have seen that though the trailer is attached to the tractor, the trailer also required separate insurance coverage to indemnify the liability of the insured by the Insurance company and in the absence of the coverage of the insurance to the trailer attached to the tractor, if any damage is caused to third party by the trailer, the appellant – Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the loss of owner of trailer. 3. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the finding of the lower Court fixing the liability against the Insurance Company-the appellant herein is sustainable? P O I N T: 4. As seen from the impugned Order, the learned Judge observed that the offending tractor was insured with the appellant – Insurance Company during the period 12.02.1998 to 11.02.1999 and as per the policy conditions it covers the risk of driver and own damages and the seating capacity in the tractor is only one. The finding of the lower Court is based on the judgment reported in a case of SAJID MIAN V. GANGA AND OTHERS[1], wherein their Lordships held that: “Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, Section 95 – Motor Insurance – Liability of Insurance Company – Death of three persons sitting in trally attached to a tractor when the trally overtuned due to negligent driving of the tractor – Insurance company disputed its liability contending that trally was not registered separately under the Act – Whether insurance company liable – Held, Yes, trally can only move with the help of tractor and the tractor was insured……”. While placing reliance on the dictum of the aforesaid decision, the lower Court held that the Insurance Company shall indemnify the compensation payable to the petitioners. 5. The contention of the Insurance Company is that at the time of the accident, the trailer bearing No.ABJ 2666 attached to the tractor was not insured with the insurance company, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation, and placed reliance on the evidence of R.W.1. 6. During the course of arguments a recent decision in C.M.A.Nos.787 of 2003 and 3116 of 2003 placed before me on the subject matter and also on the principle. In the said C.M.As., the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited., Kadapa District v. Koduru Bhagyamma and others has been referred, wherein the Division Bench opined that a trailer attached to a motor vehicle to be a part of the motor vehicle itself while referring to the decisions of other High Courts on this aspect, the Division Bench agreed with the finding in Gunti Devaiah and others v. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others and held that no separate payment of insurance is contemplated for a trailer and when the trailer is attached to the tractor, which is insured, it becomes a part of the tractor. 7. In view of the binding decision of the Division Bench, which still holds the field, the contentions of the appellant – insurance company about its non-liability to pay the compensation in the absence of any coverage by insurance policy for the trailer, cannot be sustained. Accordingly the finding of the lower Court on that score needs no interference resulting the finding of the lower Court is sustainable. Furthermore, the lower Court discussed the evidence on record and came to correct conclusion while awarding compensation. Therefore, I see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower Court in awarding compensation. 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J 04th March, 2011 KSP [1] 1990 ACJ 54