Full Judgment
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in M.A.C. Case No. 33 of 1995, decided on 6th October, 1999.
2. The facts necessary for the decision of the case are that the claimants, who are the widow and children of Shiv Ram, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming that deceased Shiv Ram was travelling on a tractor owned by Devi Ram. Initially the plea taken was that the said tractor was being driven by one Suman Kumar. However, Devi Ram in his reply admitted the fact that he was the owner of the tractor and also stated that he in fact was drivingthe tractor at the time of the accident.
3. It appears that later it transpired that the tractor was previously owned by S/Shri Suraj Mal, Suraj Karan and Ram Karan, sons of Sunda Jat (respondent Nos. 8 to 10) and the R.C. continued to be in their name. An application was moved to implead them as parties. However, the then Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 10th November, 1998 passed an order that since Devi Ram had admitted the ownership as well as the fact that he was driving the vehicle, therefore, the application was dismissed. The Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was transferred and another Officer took his place. Without there being any application he reviewed the order passed on 10th Novembr, 1998 and suo motu impleaded the three persons aforesaid as parties to the case. Fresh issue was framed. This the Tribunal should not have done. Whether the previous order was right or wrong, the Tribunal had no right whatsoever to review the order passed by its predecessor, that too without any application by any party. However, subsequent order has not been challenged before me by any party.
4. The case of the Insurance Company is short and brief. According to Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Advocate, no passenger could be carried in a tractor and this is not only a violation of the policy, but also against the registration certificate and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such he submits that the Insurance Company has been wrongly held liable to pay compensation.
5. This point was raised before the M.A.C.T. and a number of judgments cited. The Tribunal without giving any reasons has said that the authorities cited are not applicable. Virtually no reasons have been given for coming to this conclusion except that the authorities cited were under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The manner in which the authorities, especially a Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Vidya Devi and Ors. , have been distinguished shows that the Tribunal paid scant respect to the judgments passed by this Court. The Tribunals are expected to follow the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court. The authorities can be distinguished on valid grounds, but reasons for distinguishing the same must be given if in the opinion of the Tribunal such an authority is not applicable to the facts of that case. How the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were different to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 with respect to the carriage of passengers on a tractor have not at all been gone into by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
6. The only question arising in this appeal is whether the deceased was an authorized passenger in the tractor or not
7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased was travelling on the tractor. 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 any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller.
8. 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 Company v. Chinnamma : AIR 2004 SC4338 . 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 he 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 Others decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24th November, 1991, i. e. much prior to coming into force of the 1994 amendment.
10. In the present case the cover-note has been proved as Ext. R-A. In this, it is clearly stated that the seating/sitting capacity of the vehicle is one. Similar position is reflected in the policy, Ext. RW-3/A. The registration certificate of the vehicle has also been exhibited as Ext. RE which shows that the tractor had seating/sitting capacity of only one person. Therefore, on a tractor only the driver of the tractor could travel. No other person could be carried on a tractor.
11. In view of the above discussion the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. The award made by the Tribunal is set aside to the extent that the Insurance Company is exonerated of its liability. However, in view of the fact that the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount of compensation, it would serve no purpose to permit it to withdraw the said amount and drive the claimant to another round of litigation to recover the compensation awarded from the owner. The amount deposited by it shall be released in favour of the claimants. The Insurance Company may recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from respondent Nos. 7 to 10, owners of the tractor by filing appropriate execution proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without being required to file separate suit or proceedings. The present judgment shall be treated to be the decision of the dispute between the insurer and the insured.
12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.