Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Laxmanna (Died) by Lrs. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under.....ordert. ch. surya rao, j.1. the insurer is the appellant. first respondent-claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation of rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor owned by sixth respondent herein. during the pendency of claim petition, the first respondent-claimant since died, respondents 2 to 5 have been impleaded as the legal heirs. under the impugned judgment, dated 18-6-1998 in o.p. no. 14 of 1992 on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal, hindupur, at the culmination of the enquiry, allowed claim of the claimant for a sum of rs. 1,00,000/-and directed that the amount shall be paid with interest at 15% per annum from the date of petition till realization by.....

Judgment:
ORDER

T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.

1. The Insurer is the appellant. First respondent-claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor owned by sixth respondent herein. During the pendency of claim petition, the first respondent-claimant since died, Respondents 2 to 5 have been impleaded as the legal heirs. Under the impugned judgment, dated 18-6-1998 in O.P. No. 14 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindupur, at the culmination of the enquiry, allowed claim of the claimant for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-and directed that the amount shall be paid with interest at 15% per annum from the date of petition till realization by the first respondent-insurer, the present appellant. Having been aggrieved by the said judgment, the insurer has now filed the present appeal assailing the same.

2. The main thrust of the contention of the appellant seems to be that the insurer is not liable, inasmuch as the trailer on which the deceased and others found to be travelling on the fateful day, had not been insured with the insurer.

3. The Respondents 1 to 5 seek to contend that the tractor having been admittedly insured with the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that the trailer attached to the tractor has not been separately insured, the insurance company is liable.

4. The only point that falls for determination in this appeal is:

'Whether the offending vehicle happens to be a tractor and trailer attached to it, both are required to be insured, or suffice if the tractor is insured leaving the trailer?'

5. In Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. v. J. Kotiratnamma, : 1999(6)ALT745 , a learned Single Judge of this Court has taken a view that inasmuch as under the insurance policy, the liability for trailer has not been undertaken by the insurer, the insurer is not liable to indemnity the owner for compensation payable since trailer which is being a goods vehicle requires to be insured, even though it is pulled by the Tractor. An opposite view seems to have been taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Gunti Devaiah v. Vaka Peddi Reddy, : 2003(6)ALT300 , having regard to the fact that the trailer by itself cannot be driven and therefore the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent driving would not arise and that it is only for tax purposes, the trailer is required to be insured separately and the trailer has been treated as a goods vehicle and as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated when the trailer is attached to a tractor, it becomes tractor and trailer. A distinction shall have to be drawn between the motor vehicle and a vehicle i.e., visible in all the definitions and more especially in Chapter-XL The learned Judge has ultimately taken a view that the insurance of the trailer is not a mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Having regard to the cleavage in ordinary course, I would have referred the matter to the Bench for consideration and to settle the difference of opinion. However, on an examination of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the legal position seems to be obvious. Under the new Act, the expression 'tractor and trailer' have been defined under Section 2 Sub-sections (44) and (46) respectively. Similarly, the expression; 'heavy goods vehicle', 'light motor vehicle' and 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' were also defined under Section 2 Sub-sections (15), (21) and (28) of the Act respectively. The tractor comes within the definition of a heavy goods vehicle when the unladen weight exceeds 12,000 Kgs and when the unladen weight of the tractor does not exceed 7500 Kgs, it becomes light motor vehicle. However, as can be seen from the definition of 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' as given in Section 2 Sub-section (28) of the Act, it is obvious that any vehicle which is mechanically propelled vehicle adopted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer. From this definition, it is obvious that the trailer is a motor vehicle. When, once it is considered to be a motor vehicle notwithstanding the fact that by itself, it is not a mechanically propelled vehicle, it becomes a motor vehicle for all practical purposes. It is appropriate here to consider Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to this section, no persons shall use a motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of the M.V. Act. Therefore, Section 146 of the Act mandates that every motor vehicle shall be insured and without any such insurance, the vehicle shall not be allowed to be used. Having regard to the definition of motor vehicle as enjoined under Section 2 Sub-section (28) of the Act, trailer is also a motor vehicle and as can be seen from the mandate contained in Section 146 of the M.V. Act that every motor vehicle requires to be insured before putting the same to use. It is obvious that even the trailer requires to be insured separately, regardless of the fact that a trailer is attached to the tractor and it is not a self-propelled vehicle. This definition has not been considered by the learned Single Judge in Gunti Devaiah's case (supra). However, the said provision has been considered by a learned Single Judge in J. Kotiratnamma's case (supra).

6. In that view of the matter, the latter judgment of this Court becomes per. in curium, having been rendered against a specific provision of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the former judgment of this Court can be preferred as a judgment laying down the correct law, vis-a-vis the latter judgment, notwithstanding the divergence. In view of the said legal position, placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in J. Kotiratnamma's case (supra), I have no hesitation to hold that the trailer also requires to be insured separately. Inasmuch as the trailer in this case has not been insured admittedly, the appellant-insurer is not liable. Therefore, the appeal shall have to be allowed while directing the owner of the tractor i.e., 6th respondent herein to pay the compensation to the claimants. It may be mentioned here that the owner is not assailing the award passed by the Tribunal.

7. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. But, in the circumstances, no order as to costs.