1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.446/2009 with CA NO.12577/2008; WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.4071/2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.4074/2008 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.4075/2008. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 7th January, 2010. ... 1) Heard Mr.SG Chapalgaonkar for the appellant – New India Assurance Company Ltd.. The respondents though served absent. Respective appeals are admitted, however, no participation. 2) These appeals being arising out of the same accident are heard and decided by this common order. 3) Tractor bearing registration No.MH-11/G-1552 had a trolley, it was owned by Suresh Ramchandra Panbude and insured with the appellant/insurance 2 company. It is alleged by the claimants that they were travelling in the said tractor as a skilled labourers since they desired to attend sugar factory for sugarcane cutting. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the travel was not on the tractor by itself, but the travel of the passengers/labourers was in the trolley attached to the said tractor. The trolley in which the so-called labourers were travelling was not at all covered under the insurance policy. Even the travel by the passengers on the tractor or treating them as labours was also not covered under the insurance policy. 4) The learned Member, MACT, considering the evidence of the Medical Officer about the disability and the earning, has allowed the individual claim petition by passing orders, fixing the responsibility to remit the amount by the insurance company. The insurance company had indeed examined D.W.1 – 3 Bharat Lahunath Nikam as its witness in MACP No.44/2005 and certified copy of the deposition was placed on record in other matter. Said Bharat Nikam had proved that policy of the tractor was in the name of Suresh Ramchandra Pangude and it was restricted for tractor and not for the trolley as the premium for tractor was Rs. 2760/-. Since there was no insurance of the persons travelling in the trolley/trailer, the insurance company does not cover risk of such persons. 5) Under the Motor Vehicles Act, `trailer’ is independently defined in terms of section 2(46) of the Act, which reads as under : “trailer” means any vehicle, other than a semi- trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.” 6) Thus, the trailer, having an independent identity, cannot be equated in the definition of “tractor” appearing in Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 4 1988. 7) In view of all these details, the learned Member of the Tribunal could not have directed the insurance company to remit the amount as the vicarious liability. The order requires interference as it is not flowing in tune with the contract of the insurance of the appellant/insurance company. 8) All the four appeals are allowed. The impugned order to the extent of appellant/insurance company to remit the amount of the respective claimants, is set aside. No costs. 9) The amount deposited by the appellant/insurance company in respective appeals be refunded to the insurance company after sixty days. 10)Civil Application disposed of. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa446.09