1 2025:CGHC:59954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1825 of 2024 1 - Pushpendra Kumar S/o Pardeshi Ram, R/o Village- Bullutola, Post- Kholjhar, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tractor No. C.G.-24-S- 4361 And Trolley No. C.G.-07-D-6089) 2 - Pardeshiram S/o Bideram Netam, R/o Village- Bullutola, Post- Kholjhar, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Trolley No. C.G.- 07-D-6089 At The Time Of Accident) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kanturam S/o Bishal Ram, R/o Village- Bullutola, Post- Kholjhar, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Registered Owner Of Tractor No. C.G.- 24-S-4361) 2 - Megma, H.D.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager, 5th Floor, Shop No. 501, 509, 512, D.B. City Corporate Park, Rajbandha Ground, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurance Company) 3 - Smt. Vandana Kodo Wd/o Late Devnarayan Kodo Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Kholjhar, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 1) 4 - Ravindra Kumar Kodo S/o Late Devnarayan Kodo Aged About 12 Years Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother- Smt. Vandana Kodo. R/o Village- Kholjhar, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 2) 5 - Neeraj Kodo S/o Late Devnarayan Kodo Aged About 7 Years Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother- Smt. Vandana Kodo. R/o Village- Kholjhar, Tahsil NIRMALA RAO 2 Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 3) 6 - Khuma Lal Kodo S/o Late Devnarayan Kodo Aged About 3 Years Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother- Smt. Vandana Kodo. R/o Village- Kholjhar, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 4) 7 - Smt. Sulochna Bai Wd/o Neval Singh Kodo Aged About 59 Years R/o Village- Kholjhar, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant No. 5) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.3 to 7 : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate holding the brief of Shri P.K. Patel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.12.2025 1. Appellant No.1 – Pushpendra Kumar is owner of the Tractor bearing registration No. C.G.24S 4361 whereas, appellant No.2 – Pardeshiram is owner of the Trolley bearing registration No.C.G.07 D 6089. They have challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod in Claim Case No. 26 of 2023 dated 5.8.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.17,86,875/- and fastened 50% liability upon the Insurance Company and 50% liability upon the appellants herein. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 20.12.2022, deceased – Devkaran Kodo, while returning to his village Bagaikonha on his motorcycle at around 7:30 pm, rammed into a stationary Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos. C.G.24S 4361 and C.G.07 D 6089, resultantly, he sustained injuries and succumbed to death. The claimants, who are 3 widow, three minor children and the mother of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein they pleaded that at the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 38 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. They claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.34,50,000/-. 3. The appellants, herein, filed reply to the claim petition and stated that on account of technical problem, the Tractor-Trolley was parked on the side of the road and the indicators were switched on. They pleaded that the deceased, under the influence of alcohol, was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently and dashed it against the stationary Trolley and succumbed to death. They pleaded that the Tractor-Trolley was being used for agricultural purpose and its driver had valid and effective driving license. The Tractor was insured with Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited whereas, the Trolley was not insured. 4. The Insurance Company filed its reply and stated that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license and there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led their respective evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the learned Tribunal committed an error of law while fastening the liability upon owners of Tractor and Trolley. He would contend that the Tractor was insured for agricultural purposes and the Trolley was attached thereto. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has fastened 50% liability solely on the ground that the Trolley was not separately insured. He would submit that as the Trolley was attached to the Tractor and it 4 was being used for agricultural purposes, no separate insurance was required. He would submit that a Tractor-Trolley combination would constitute a single motor vehicle and ought to have been treated as one unit by the learned Tribunal. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Honnamma and Others, passed in SLP (Civil) No.2135 of 2023 and the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nagina Devi and Ors., passed in First Appeal No.2821 of 2015. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the appellants. He would submit that as the Trolley was stationary at the time of the accident, separate insurance was mandatory, and in the absence of insurance thereof, the learned Tribunal rightly fastened 50% liability upon the appellants. He would submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Honnamma (supra), while dealing with a similar issue held that if a Trailer is stationary and due to some reason, overturns or causes a mishap, the insurer would not be liable to pay compensation unless the Trailer is specifically insured. He would submit that in the present case, the Trolley was stationary and the deceased dashed against the stationary Trolley, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly held the owners of the Tractor & Trolley liable to indemnify 50% of the compensation. He would submit that the appeal preferred by the appellants deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5 8. It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act for proper appreciation of the matter. (i) Under Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' is defined as follows: "(28) 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted 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; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimetres." (ii) Section 2 (44) of Motor Vehicles Act defines 'tractor' thus: "(44) '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." 'Trailer' is defined in Section 2 (46) as follows: "(46) 'trailer' means any vehicle, other than a semi- trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle." (iii) 'Semi-trailer' vehicle is defined in Section 2 (39) as follows: (39) 'semi-trailer' means a vehicle not mechanically propelled (other than a trailer), which is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle and which is so constructed that a portion of it is superimposed on, and a part of whose weight is borne by that motor vehicle." (iv) Expression 'goods carriage' is defined in Section 2 (14) as 6 follows: "(14) 'goods carriage' means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods." 9. A reading of the above-referred provisions would clearly indicate that the distinction has been made between the motor vehicle and the vehicle. As the trailer is included within the expression motor vehicle, it was required to be insured. While all the motor vehicles may fall within the definition of vehicles, all the vehicles are not the motor vehicles. The Trailer, as such, is an attachment made to the prime mover either a tractor or another mechanical contrivance and has no independent propulsion. The trailer always is a detachable container, which does not have any independent driving system. Its movement is dependent on the prime mover, such as tractor or other motor vehicle. 10. The trailer is a vehicle which is not driven by a separate driver have a license. The Tractor-cum-Trailer is a goods vehicle within the meaning of Section 2 (8) of the Act, which falls within the definition of goods vehicle. The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortious liability and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is a sine qua non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a motor vehicle, namely, a tractor or a like self-propelled vehicle, therefore, the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent manner would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the motor vehicle which controls movement of the trailer and in case of negligent driving of the tractor or 7 the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. 11. The Trailer is only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle and under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated. When the trailer is attached to the tractor it becomes a tractor-trailer. There is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk. 12. In the matter of Smt. Honnamma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 11 held as under: “11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example: that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.” 13. In the present case, on the date of accident, the offending Tractor with an attached Trolley was carrying sugarcane and due to some technical problem, the Tractor and Trolley were parked on the side of the road. It is stated in FIR Ex.A/2 that no indicator was used by the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased rammed into the stationary Tractor. Thus, it is not a case where the Trolley alone was stationary at a 8 place without any sufficient cause and the deceased dashed against a stationary Trolley rather it is a case where Tractor was attached to the Trolley and was parked at the side of the road. The ultimate root cause of the accident was the technical failure of the tractor, due to which both the tractor and the trolley were parked on the side of the road. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further considered the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of United India Insurance Company Limited, Kadapa District vs. Koduru Bhagyamma, reported in 2007 SCC OnLine AP 830, paragraph 14 reads as under: “14. Now on analysis of these judgments and the provisions of law which have been quoted above, we feel that the law has been correctly appreciated by a learned single Judge of this Court in Gunti Devaiah and Ors. v. Vaka Peddi Reddy and Ors. (4th supra) and the reasons given by him are sufficient to hold that under the Motor Vehicles Act no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer and when the trailer is attached to the tractor which is insured, it becomes the part of the tractor. We reproduce the para-26 of the said judgment as under: The word "vehicle" mentioned in Section 147 is co-relatable to the word motor vehicles, which is stipulated in Section 146. Therefore, the expression vehicle wherever appearing in Chapter X(XI) has to be only read as motor vehicle. The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortuous liability and the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is a sine quo non for maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Act. Inasmuch as the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or towed with a motor vehicle namely a tractor or a like self propelled vehicles. Therefore, the question of driving the trailer in a rash and negligent manner would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the 9 motor vehicle which controls movement of the tractor and in case of the negligence driving of the trailer or the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for payment of compensation. But, since the trailer is attached can it be said that trailer should also be independently insured so as to avoid the liability of compensation in case of rash and negligent driving by the driver. That contingency would not arise, as it is only a vehicle and not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes, it is treated as a goods vehicle. But, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, no separate Insurance is contemplated. When the trailer is attached to the tractor it becomes a tractor- trailer. There is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk. The reasons are obvious that it cannot be driven by the driver as in the case of motor vehicles or tractors. Thus, a separate distinction has been drawn between the motor vehicle and a vehicle i.e., visible in all the definitions and more especially in Chapter-XI. The same situation also persists in Chapter-X in case of no fault liability wherein it has been stated that whether a death or a permanent disability of any person has been resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles and there is no reference to vehicle as such. This aspect was never considered in any of the decisions relied on by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company and also for other side.” 15. In the matter of Nagina Devi (supra), the High Court of Allahabad in para 6 held as under: “6. From above discussion it appears that law enunciated generally is that a tractor-trailer combination would constitute a motor vehicle and even a "Goods Carriage" under Section 2(47) if it is used as a vehicle for use in commercial purpose of transporting goods and would fall under Section 2(14) as a "Goods Carriage" for the reason that both, chassis and trailer 10 attached would fall within the meaning of expression Motor Vehicle, hence in such a case, trailer attached to the tractor is to be separately registered and insured, but if at the relevant time it is not being used for any commercial purpose the trailer does not require separate insurance and registration.” 16. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the High Court of Allahabad, it can be held that no separate insurance is contemplated for the Trolley. When the Trolley is attached to an insured Tractor, it becomes part of the Tractor. Accordingly, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal whereby 50% liability has been fastened with the appellants herein, is hereby set aside. As the Tractor was insured, the Insurance Company is held liable to indemnify the entire compensation. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi