Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of six appeals being FAO Nos. 485, 486, 487, 488, 489 and 500 of 2003 filed by the claimants as they arise out of the same accident. The appeals have been filed in a similar point and the same point is in issue in all the appeals.
2. The brief facts necessary for decision of the case are that the victims in all the six cases were travelling as passengers in Tractor Trolly No. PB-05B-3175. They were going from their village Sadhuwala to Pir Nigaha temple on 30.3.1998. At about 8.30 a.m. when the tractor trolley reached their village Palkwah it turned turtle resulting in the death of the six victims. The heirs of the victims filed six separate claim petitions for compensation Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petitions were only contested by the Insurance Company and the owner-cum-driver of the tractor Jagraj Singh remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company took up the plea that it was not liable to pay the compensation since the deceased were travelling as unauthorized/illegal passengers in the tractor in question. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Jagraj Singh, owner-cum-driver of the tractor and awarded compensation in accordance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in a number of judgments. He however held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Nero India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors. : AIR2003SC607 as well as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Devireddy Konda Reddi and Ors. 2003 SCC 1009.
3. The appeals filed by the claimants have been filed basically on two points firstly that the amount of compensation be enhanced and secondly that the Insurance Company be held liable to pay this amount or in any event the Insurance Company should be asked to satisfy the award and it may be given right to recover the same from the owner of the tractor.
4. Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has at the outset very fairly conceded that he does not press the appeals in so far as the enhancement of compensation is concerned since the amount awarded in each of the claim petitions is just and reasonable. He however submits that the Insurance Company should be held liable to pay the compensation amount or in the alternative the Insurance Company should be asked to satisfy the award and should be given the right to recover the amount deposited by it from the owner.
5. On the other hand Mr. Virender Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that the appeals are itself not maintainable since the appellants are not a person aggrieved.
6. I shall first take up the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Chauhan. Mr. Chauhan has submitted that as per Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, only a person aggrieved by the award of the claims tribunal can prefer an appeal. He submits that since the award has been passed in favour of the claimants and they are satisfied with the compensation awarded they cannot be said to be persons aggrieved within the meaning of the Act. According to him merely the fact that the Insurance Company has been exonerated would not bring the appellants within the ambit of the expression 'person aggrieved'. In support of his contention he has relied upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bondugula Samyuktha Devi v. T, Shreedhar Reddy and Ors. : 2004(3)ALD561 . The judgment cited by Mr. Chauhan, in my opinion is of no help to him. In that case the award had been passed against the owner as well as the Insurance Company but not against the driver. The claimants filed an appeal that the driver should also be held liable. The Court in that case held that firstly the driver is not a necessary party to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act and secondly since the claimant was entitled to recover the amount from the Insurance Company and the owner he could not be said to be an aggrieved party as far as the driver is concerned. The judgment has been delivered in the peculiar facts of the said case. The Motor Vehicles Act provides for compulsory insurance coverage of motor vehicles. This has been done with the intention that the accident victims are in fact able to get compensation from the Insurance Company. The claimants may or may not be able to recover compensation from the owner but in case the Insurance Company is held liable then the probability of recovering the compensation turns into certainly. Therefore, a claimant can genuinely feel aggrieved if the Insurance Company is not held liable for compensation. The claimant can legitimately file the appeal on the ground that the Insurance Company should be made liable since this would make his recovery easy and not illusory. While taking this view I am supported by the decision of the Orissa High Court in Padmabati Devi v. Dasarathi Sahu and Anr. , Braja Kishore Mohanty v. M.C. Shyamasundar and Anr. 1989 ACJ 450. However, the mere fact that he has a right to file an appeal does not mean that the Insurance Company should always be held liable. This shall depend on the facts of each case.
7. That brings us to the question as to whether the Insurance Company can be made liable to pay the compensation. Admittedly the vehicle in question insured with thru Insurance Company was a tractor. The sitting capacity of the vehicle was only one. It was meant to be used only for agricultural purpose and not for carrying of passengers.
8. A tractor is not a goods vehicle. Section 2 (44) defines 'tractor' as under :
'tractor' means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry and load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller.
It is, thus, clear that a tractor is not meant to carry any passengers or to carry any load. A trailer has been defined in Section 2 (46) 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.
9. When a trailer is attached to the tractor, the trailer can be used for carriage of goods. However, the trailer cannot be used for carriage of passengers. The question whether the tractor becomes a goods vehicle when a trailer has been attached to it has been left open by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. v. V. Chinnamma : AIR2004SC4338 . The Apex Court considered these questions and held as follows :
16. A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to the market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purpose. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of 'goods carriage' as contained in Section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decisions of this Court in Asha Rani and Ors. decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991 i.e. much prior to coming into force of the 1994 amendment
10. In view of the above law it is clear that no person other than the driver could travel on the tractor. There was no insurance coverage for any passenger and hence the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation.
11. It is contended by Sh. Naveen Bhardwaj that following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors. : (2005)12SCC243 , National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Ors. : AIR2004SC1340 , National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ajit Kumar and Ors. : AIR2003SC3093 , New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 223, this Court may even if the Insurance Company is not liable direct that keeping in view the interest of the claimants the Insurance Company should satisfy the award and may be given the right to recover the same from the insured. Even this contention of the appellants cannot be accepted. The Apex Court in the above cases was dealing with the question where the vehicle was admittedly insured and some type of passengers could be carried in the vehicle. There is no manner of doubt that even in a goods vehicle the owner of the goods can travel. In a goods vehicle some labourers and representatives of the owner of the goods can also travel. Therefore, though the vehicle is meant primarily for carriage of goods some specified categories of passengers can be carried. It is in view of this position of law that the Apex Court held that the Insurance Company should first satisfy the award and then recover the amount from the owner. The Apex Court in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) also made it clear that in view of the various contradictory rulings from time to time the position was not clear and as such held that the interest of justice will be sub-served if the Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The Apex Court however clarified that the legal position which it had taken i.e. that the gratuitous passengers cannot be carried in a goods carriage vehicle would have prospective effect. Thereafter, the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors. : (2005)12SCC243 , has held that the Insurance Company even in cases of goods vehicle would not be liable to satisfy the award.
12. The case of the appellants stands on weaker footing. As far as tractor and trolley attached therewith is concerned there can be and has never been any doubt that no passengers can be carried in the same. Therefore, to hold that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award would to go against the law laid down by the Apex Court.
13. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the Insurance Company cannot be directed to satisfy the award. The appeals are therefore dismissed. No costs.