- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7293 OF 2012 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7294 OF 2012, MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7295 OF 2012 IN MFA No. 7293/2012 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNISWAMY S/O. KUPPALINGAM AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. AMARAVATHI CAMP HASUDI POST, SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A K BHAT, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. B S PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHAKIRA W/O. LATE DASTHAGIR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2. SRI. DADAPPER S/O LATE DASTHAGIR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3. SRI. SHAFI R Digitally signed by N UMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 S/O LATE DASTHAGIR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 4. KUM. REHANA D/O LATE DASTHAGIR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HOSA KODIHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301. 5. SRI. A KUMAR S/O ARMUGAM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.124/A, HASUDI FARM, SHIMOGA TALUK - 577 201. 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, 1ST FLOOR, S.S.COMPLEX, B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA - 577 201. (RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 AND RESPONDENT NO.5 & 6 ARE RESPONDENT NO.1 & 3 BEFORE M.A.C.T) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B K MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. N.KUMARASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.4.2012 PASSED IN MVC - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 NO.117/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, BHADRAVATHI AND ETC., IN MFA NO. 7294/2012 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNISWAMY S/O. KUPPALINGAM AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMARAVATHI CAMP, HASUDI POST, SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A K BHAT, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. B S PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MASTER GIRISH S/O YELAKKAIAHA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, 2. KUM. A. ISHWARYA D/O YELAKKAIAHA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS SINCE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER AT SL.NO.3 BELOW 3. SMT. CHIKKAMMADAMMA W/O YELAKKAIAHA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 4. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DEVARANASIPURA VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301. 5. SRI. A.KUMAR S/O ARMUGAM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.124/A, HASUDI FARM, SHIMOGA TALUK – 577 201. 6. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 1ST FLOOR, S.S.COMPLEX, B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA - 577 201. (RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 AND RESPONDENT NO.5 & 6 ARE RESPONDENT NO.1 & 3 BEFORE M.A.C.T) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B K MANJUNATH, ADVOATE FOR R3[R1 & R2 ARE MINORS REP. BY R3]; SRI. SHIVRAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.4.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.119/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, BHADRAVATHI AND ETC., - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 IN MFA NO. 7295/2012 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNISWAMY S/O. KUPPALINGAM AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. AMARAVATHI CAMP HASUDI POST SHIMOGA TALUK & DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.K.BHAT, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. B S PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHIVAGANGAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWORK 2. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR G S S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURIST BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF YAREHALLI VILLAGE MARUTHI NAGAR POST BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 301. 3. SRI. A KUMAR S/O ARMUGAM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO. 124/A HASUDI FARM - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 SHIMOGA TALUK – 577 201. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD 1ST FLOOR, S.S.COMPLEX B H ROAD SHIMOGA – 577 201. (RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 ARE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 AND RESPONDENT NO.5 & 6 ARE RESPONDENT NO.1 & 3 BEFORE M.A.C.T) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B K MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; R3 IS SERVED; SRI. SHIVRAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.4.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.120/2010 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, BHADRAVATHI AND ETC., THESE APPEALS ARE HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 CAV JUDGMENT These appeals are filed by the appellant/owner under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), questioning the judgment and award dated 28.04.2012 passed in MVC Nos.117/2010, 119/2010 and 120/2010 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Bhadravathi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short), so far as, fastening liability on the appellant. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. On 03.05.2010, one Madesha a timber merchant took Dasthagirsab and Yelakaiah to Chinnikatte village for cutting Nilgiri Trees. After cutting Nilgiri trees, poles were loaded in tractor- trailer bearing No.KA-14-TA- 1539/40. Respondent No.1, the driver of the said tractor - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 has stated that he will bring the tractor- trailer to weigh bridge at Jedikatte, Bhadravathi. At about 11.10 p.m. (night) when Madesha, Dasthagirsab and Yelakaiah were waiting for the above tractor- trailer by standing by the side of road near Jedikatte weigh bridge, respondent No.1 drove the said tractor- trailer in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the tractor - trailer. As a result, the tractor- trailer was turned turtle and fell on Madesha, Dasthagirsab and Yelakaiah. They sustained grievous injuries and Dasthagirsab and Yelakaiah died on the spot, whereas Madesha breathe last while taking treatment in the hospital. 4. The claimants in M.V.C. No.117/2010 are the wife and children of the deceased Dasthagirsab and contended that at the time of accident, the Dasthagirsab was aged 40 years and was working as a Carpenter and also wood cutter and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 5. The claimants in M.V.C. No.119/2010 are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Yelakaiah and contended that at the time of the accident, the deceased Yelakaiah was aged about 35 years, he was hale and healthy and working as Carpenter and wood cutter and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. 6. The claimants in M.V.C. No.120/2010 are the parents of the deceased Madesha and contended that at the time of accident, the deceased Madesha was aged about 35 years, he was hale and healthy, he was an agriculturist and also doing timber business and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. 7. The claimants contend that they were depending on the income of the deceased persons. All the claimants have filed their respective claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the driver, owner and insurer of the offending tractor- trailer - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them. 8. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, has granted the following compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petitions till the date of realization. Sl. No. Particulars Amount in Rupees MVC No.117/ 2010 (Dasthagir) MVC No.119/ 2010 (Yelakaiah) MVC No.120/2010 (Madesha) 1. Loss of dependency 4,16,000.00 5,40,000.00 1,50,000.00 2. Loss of estate 10,000.00 10,000.00 -- 3. Loss of consortium 10,000.00 10,000.00 -- 4. Transportation of dead body & funeral expenses 14,000.00 10,000.00 14,000.00 5. Travelling expenses -- -- 1,250.00 TOTAL 4,50,000.00 5,70,000.00 1,65,250.00 Rounded off to -- -- 1,70,000.00 9. The Tribunal has fastened the liability on the appellant who is owner of the offending tractor- trailer and exonerated respondent No.2 – Insurance Company. - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 10. The Tribunal has assigned reasons that the claimants have not proved that the deceased income and due to death of the deceased they have lost their earning member in the family. Therefore, considering the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation as above stated. The Tribunal fastened the liability on the appellant/owner of the tractor- trailer and exonerated the Insurance Company as the appellant has used the said tractor-trailer for hire and reward basis. It is the observation made by the Tribunal that the tractor- trailer shall be used only for personal use of the appellant for agricultural purpose and he ought not to have sent the tractor- trailer for hire and could not use the tractor- trailer for commercial purpose. Therefore, there is violation of terms of Ex.R1-Insurance Policy as on the date of the accident. Therefore, fastened liability on the appellant/owner as conditions in the insurance policy are violated. It is finding given by the Tribunal that while - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 Madesha was transporting Nilgiri poles belonging to him from Chinnikatte to Bhadravathi on hire basis, the accident was occurred and thus the appellant/owner of the tractor- trailer had violated the conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, fastened the liability on the appellant/owner of the offending tractor - trailer. 11. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed fastening liability on the appellant/owner, the owner has filed the appeals by raising various grounds in the appeals. Learned Senior counsel Sri. A.K.Bhat, appearing for the appellant/owner of the tractor- trailer has argued in consonance with the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeals that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence as on the date of accident and there is no violation of conditions of insurance policy. Hence, fixing liability on the appellant is not sustainable. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 12. Further, it is submitted that admittedly there was valid existence of Ex.R1 – Insurance Policy and there was no violation of condition in the policy. Therefore, exonerating the Insurance Company is not correct. Further, submitted that the vehicle was insured as against third party liability and the deceased persons were standing on the road when the accident occurred. Hence, fixing the liability on the appellant/owner is not sustainable. Further, submitted that the tractor-trailer was insured for use of the agricultural and forestry purposes and in the tractor-trailer, the Nilgiri poles were being transported, which were forest products and the same were purchased by the appellant/owner for constructing his house. Hence, there is no violation of the terms of the policy. Therefore, prays to set aside/modify the judgment and award and fix liability on the Insurance Company. 13. Further, the learned Senior Counsel argued that the deceased were waiting near weigh bridge indicated - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 that the Nilgiri poles had been always sold and same were required to be weighed to ascertain the actual price and balance, if any, otherwise there was no necessity for them to wait for the tractor-trailer near the weigh bride ought to have been appreciated. Nilgiri Poles have been seized by police along with tractor- trailer for investigation and same had been released in favour of the appellant/owner of the tractor- trailer is averred from the statement of owner of the offending vehicle that which is borne out from the charge sheet at Ex.P7. Further, the claimants in their evidence have specifically deposed that the appellant- Muniswamy had purchased Nilgiri poles but not Madesha. Therefore, the Nilgiri poles have been claimed by the appellant but not by legal representatives of Madesha. The appellant/owner had submitted claim Form at Ex.R6 (Motor Claim Form), which specifically contained a statement by insured at Column No.5(d) that the poles were transported for the purpose of making door and window frames (chowkattu) for new house to be - 15 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 constructed by the appellant. Therefore, this circumstance supports the appellant claim that he had purchased the Nilgiri poles and for transportation of his Nilgiri poles, he had used the tractor- trailer but not by Madesha. But Tribunal has erroneously rejected the appellant’s contention on the ground that the appellant has not produced the indemnity bond executed by him while getting the release of Nilgiri poles and that he has not entered in the witness box. Therefore, submitted that this recourse as observed by the Tribunal is not correct since in motor vehicles accident cases, the nature of the proceeding is summary in nature and strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Therefore, what is borne out from the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, on the preponderance of probabilities, the same ought to have been considered by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has ordered the theory of beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is submitted that the approach of the Tribunal is not correct. - 16 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 14. Further, it is submitted that when the Insurance Company has alleged that the investigation is biased one, therefore, the matter was referred for re-investigation by DYSP and he has submitted the Report stating that the insurer has failed to furnish any evidence or material to show that the Niligiri Poles belongs to deceased Madesha or that the same was not purchased by appellant. Therefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DYSP) has submitted the Report and from the said Report and according to the statement of witnesses recorded, it is found that the appellant has purchased the NilIgiri Poles but not by Madesha. When this being the ample material on record, the Tribunal ought to have held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the appellant/owner but without doing so had passed erroneous judgment and award. 15. Further, by placing reliance on the relevant provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central - 17 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 has argued that the tractor- trailer is insured for agricultural purposes. When such being the fact, there ought not to have been condition that the tractor shall not be used for hire or reward purposes. Therefore, the condition put by the Insurance Company in the Insurance Policy is contrary and in contrary to the provisions of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act and Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules and other statutes. It is submitted that the Insurance Company was not empowered to put such conditions in the Insurance Policy that the tractor shall not be used for any hire and reward purposes. When tractor- trailer mainly for the purpose of agricultural and forestry produces, putting such condition in the Insurance Policy is impermissible as per law. 16. Learned Senior Counsel by placing various provisions under the Acts and Rules and other statutes has argued that the condition put by the Insurance Company is ultra virus to the Acts, Rules and Statutes. Therefore, it - 18 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 is submitted that the Insurance Company shall not take advantage of illegal conditions put in the Insurance Policy. Therefore, with reference to the various provisions under the Act and Rules, learned Senior counsel submitted that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, it is submitted that the insurer ought not to have put such condition by inserting in the policy other than those mentioned in Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of M.V Act, 1988 to avoid liability. Therefore, the condition put by the Insurance Company as tractor-trailer used for hire and reward is contrary to Section 149(2)(a)(i)((c) of M.V. Act, 1988. When such being the conditions put in the insurance policy and when the condition is illegal condition, then the Insurance Company shall not take benefit of avoiding liability. Therefore, it is submitted that the condition put by the Insurance Company is against the spirit and object of the Acts and Rules and defeats the very purpose for which the principle of insurance has evolved. Therefore, it is submitted the Insurance Company ought not to have - 19 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 avoided its liability on the basis of such a condition, as the same is contrary to the Acts, Rules and Statutes. 17. Therefore, canvassing the aforesaid contentions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company shall be made liable to pay the compensation by indemnifying the appellant/owner. Therefore, prays to modify the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 18. In support of his argument, he places reliance on the following judgments: • The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Kaur and others1 • The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajoy Kumar Banerjee and others vs. Union of India and others2 • The judgment of this Court in the case of Laxmibai w/o. Yallappa Bilagi & others vs. Shantappa P. Kamat3 1 (1998) 1 SCC 371 2 (1984) 3 SCC 127 3 MFA Nos.12587/2007 c/w. MFA No.13450/2006 - 20 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 • The judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Sri. Maruthi and others4 • The judgment of this Court in the case of Mounesh vs. Thimmanna and another5 • The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others6 19. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the tractor- trailer was used for hire and reward purposes. Therefore, there is violation of conditions of insurance policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation by indemnifying the owner and therefore, the Tribunal is correct and justified in exonerating the Insurance Company to pay compensation by fastening liability on the insured/owner of the tractor - trailer. 4 ILR 2011 KAR 4139 5 2011 ACJ 2054 6 2002 ACJ 1950 - 21 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 20. Further, it is submitted that on the very apparent face on the complaint, it is proved that the tractor was taken by one of the deceased for transporting Nilgiri poles and therefore, the insured has given tractor- trailer for hire purpose. When this being the evidence on record disclosed, the Tribunal is correct and justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Further, it is submitted that the vehicle was insured as against third party liability only and was not used for any agricultural purposes but was given to the deceased for hire for transportation of Nilgiri poles. Therefore, from the police records, it is proved that the vehicle given for hire basis. Therefore, justified the order of the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the owner/insured. 21. Further, it is submitted that there is conditions of insurance policy that the vehicle shall not be used for hire and reward purpose and the insured very well knew this condition while purchasing insurance police. - 22 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 Therefore, owner/insured is bound by the terms and conditions of insurance police. Hence, submitted the insured alone is liable to pay compensation. 22. Also, as per section 147 of M.V Act, 1988 prohibits using of the tractor-trailer for hire and reward basis and in case of violation of statutory provisions, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. 23. Further, the learned counsel argued with reference to the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the State and Central Rules that permit to be used only for the purpose of transportation of agricultural produces that too for the self purpose of the owner-cum- insured but in the present case, the police evidence on record proved that the tractor- trailer was used for hire basis. Hence, justified the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. - 23 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 24. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides and perusing the material available on record, the following points would arise for consideration: 1. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellant prove that he had purchased the Nilgiri poles from Madesha and transporting the same as owner thereof? 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the Insurance Company proves that Madesha had purchased Nilgiri poles and for transportation purpose he has taken the tractor- trailer from the appellants on rent? 3. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, is the combination of agricultural tractor- trailer a ‘goods vehicle’ (goods carriage), within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act - 24 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 and a ‘transport vehicle’ within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act? 4. Whether, inserting condition in the Insurance Policy other than those Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of M.V Act, 1988, regarding liability is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989? 5. Whether, the order passed by the Tribunal requires interference from this Court? POINT Nos.1 and 2: 25. In the complaint and FIR - Ex.P2, it is complained that the Niligiri poles were purchased by deceased Madesha and told to other two deceased, namely, Dasthagirsab and Yelakaiah to come to Chinnakatte weigh bridge and he went to weigh bridge along with driver of tractor- trailer and when all were waiting near weighbridge, the driver of tractor- trailer has suddenly stopped the tractor- trailer and therefore, the - 25 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 vehicle was capsized and fell on the three persons and died on the spot. Upon perusal of the gist of the complaint, it is stated that the deceased Madesha had purchased Niligiri poles. Therefore, on these averments in the complaint, the learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that deceased Madesh had purchased Niligiri poles and was transporting poles along with two persons. Therefore, the appellant was not the owner of the Niligiri poles but he has given the tractor- trailer on rent basis to Madesha. 26. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the insurance company is mainly based on the complaint and FIR–Ex.P2. In a criminal case, the complaint and FIR is not encyclopedia to narrate minute things. First Information Statement (FIS) is only a document to set criminal law into motion and based on FIS, the First Information Report (FIR) was registered but complaint and FIR always cannot be treated as encyclopedia to state minute things of incident. It is only gist narrating the occurrence of offence alleged. The - 26 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 truthfulness of the incident is only revealed during the course of the investigation. In the present case, the police had conducted investigation and filed charge sheet as per Ex.P7. 27. The Ex.P7 – charge sheet is annexed with statement of witnesses. The evidence in these types of cases are to be considered on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities by weighing and sifting evidence in a summary enquiry and by appreciating the documentary evidence of complaint, FIR and charge sheet. The complaint and FIR at the first instance enabling the system to set into criminal law into motion but investigation gives true picture about the incident and the role of each person stated in the FIR are revealed during the course of investigation. Therefore upon perusal of Ex.P7 charge sheet and annexed materials it is revealed that deceased Madesh sold niligiri poles to appellant. 28. During the course of investigation, the appellant has given statement before the Investigating Officer that - 27 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 the appellant has intended to purchase Niligiri poles and came to know that deceased Madesha was having Niligiri poles. Therefore, had approached deceased Madesha and had negotiated for purchasing the Niligiri poles. Therefore, further given statement that he had purchased Niligiri poles from deceased Madesha and asked to bring them to Bhadravathi in his tractor-trailer. He had engaged his driver one Kumar and sent the tractor-trailer to Madesha for transportation of the same for his personal use and accordingly, he had purchased Niligiri poles from Madesha and while bringing those Niligiri poles, this incident was happened. Therefore, during the course of investigation, it is revealed that the tractor-trailer was used by the appellant for his personal use for transportation of Niligiri poles and hence, as per investigation, in the charge sheet, it is proved that appellant had Niligiri poles for his personal use and for transportation of said Niligiri poles, he has used tractor-trailer. - 28 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 29. When considering these two events as stated in the complaint and charge sheet, the materials in charge sheet carries more weightage and has more probability compared to contents in the complaint and FIR. Since the complaint is only to set into motion the criminal law, upon the complaint and FIRs but they are not encyclopedia. 30. During the course of conducting panchanama of the place of accident, the Investigating Officer had seized the tractor- trailer and Niligiri poles. The appellant had got released Niligiri poles by filing appropriate application before the Court. If the appellant had not purchased Niligiri poles, then there was no occasion for him to get released the Niligiri poles from the Court. Hence, it is proved that since the appellant had purchased Niligiri poles, therefore, he had got released Niligiri poles from the Court. The legal heirs of the deceased in their petition have pleaded in the claim petition that the appellant had purchased Niligiri poles. The appellant had filed claim - 29 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 application in Form No.6 at Ex.R6 claiming Niligiri poles. In the claim form, the appellant has stated that the vehicle was used for his self purpose and for his personal use. Therefore, the said evidence proves that the appellant had purchased Niligiri poles from the deceased and had used his tractor- trailer for transportation of Niligiri poles after purchasing Niligiri poles. In this regard, when the reasons given by the Tribunal are considered by this Court, the reasons of the Tribunal are contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, the findings given by the Tribunal are perverse in nature. 31. The Tribunal found fault with the appellant for not producing the indemnity bond while getting the release of the Niligiri poles and also he has not entered into the witness box. 32. It is well settled principles of law that the proceedings in these type of cases in MACTs are summary in nature. The strict rules of evidence and pleadings are - 30 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 not applicable. Therefore, what is emerged from the evidence on record, on all its preponderance of probabilities, that carries more weightage, therefore, on its preponderance of probabilities it is proved that the appellant had purchased Niligiri poles and had engaged his tractor- trailer for transportation. 33. The insurance company has complained before the police higher authorities that the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer was not fair one. Therefore, the matter was ordered to be re-investigated by the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP) and the Dy.SP submitted the report stating that the insurer has failed to furnish evidence or material to show that the Niligiri poles belonged to the deceased Madesha or that the same was not purchased by the appellant. Ex.R7 is the report of re-investigation conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that there is no fault in the investigation conducted by the Circle Police Inspector. - 31 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 Therefore, even during re-investigation also, the contention of the Insurance Company that appellant had not purchased the Niligiri poles but Madesha had purchased Niligiri poles and has given tractor-trailer on rent basis, is not proved. Therefore, considering all these materials on record produced before the Tribunal, while considering the petition and upon reappreciation of evidence on record, the approach of the Tribunal is found to be perverse in nature as the findings are contrary to the evidence on record and is found to be illegal. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative, Point No.2 in the negative. POINT NOS.3 AND 4: 3. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, is the combination of agricultural tractor- trailer a ‘goods vehicle’ (goods carriage), within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act and a ‘transport vehicle’ within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act? - 32 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 4. Whether, inserting condition in the Insurance Policy other than those Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) of M.V Act, 1988, regarding liability is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989? 34. In the present case, the vehicle involved in the accident is tractor- trailer bearing No.KA-14-TA-1539/40. Admittedly, the insurance policy issued is Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehicles Policy B Package. As per policy, the limitation as to use is only for using agricultural and forestry purposes. 35. For better understanding, the conditions of policy is extracted as follows: “ Limitation as to use: Use only for agricultural and forestry purposes. The policy does not cover (1) Use for hire or reward or for racing pace making reliability trial or speed testing. (2) Use for the carriage of passengers for hire or - 33 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 reward. (3) Use whilst drawing a greater number of trailers in all than is permitted by law. Persons or Class of Persons entitled to drive: Any person including Insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner’s License may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989. Limits of Liability: Under Section-II(i) in respect of any one accident: As per Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Under Section-II(i) in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of one event: Rs. 750000 IMI Endorsement Numbers printed herewith attached hereto 7, 21, 48, 24” 36. As gathered from the insurance policy, the limitation for using vehicle are as follows: - 34 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 The vehicle shall be used only for agricultural and forestry purposes. There is specific clause saying that the policy does not cover for the following circumstances: i) Use for hire or reward or for racing pace making reliability trial or speed testing; ii) Use for carriage of passengers for hire or reward; iii) Use whilst drawing a greater number of trailers in all than is permitted by law. 37. As above discussed at point Nos. (i) and (ii), it is proved that the appellant being owner of the vehicle, has not sent the tractor- trailer for hire basis, but, he has used the tractor-trailer for his own purpose of transportation of Niligiri poles. The transportation of Nilgiri poles is coming within the parameters using for forestry purposes also. The appellant has used the tractor-trailer for forestry purposes, that means, transportation of Nilgiri poles. Therefore, the discussion on point No.(3) and point No.(4) is only for laying down principles of law and for academic purposes to find out whether the insurance - 35 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 company is authorized to impose conditions ultra-vires to Acts and Rules. 38. To find out whether putting conditions ultra vires to the Acts and Rules, prohibiting the use of tractor- trailer by any person other than the owner for agricultural or forestry purposes and not covering the risk under the insurance policy, is proper or not is a question for consideration in this appeal. When the whole component of tractor-trailer is goods carriage vehicle for transportation of agricultural and forestry produce, whether its use by a person other than the owner makes it proper for avoiding the insurance company from its liability to indemnify the owner or not is to be discussed in this appeal. When the insurance policy is Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehicles Policy B Package, then only for the reason that a person other than the owner used tractor – trailer for transportation of agricultural and forestry produces, whether exonerating the insurance - 36 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 company from its liability is proper or not and whether it is ultra vires to the MV Act and allied Rules is a matter for consideration and discussion in this appeal. When the tractor-trailer is a transport vehicle for transportation of agricultural and forestry produce and categorizing that the vehicle is used for hire and reward basis and avoiding liability of insurance company is proper or not is a matter for discussion in this appeal. 39. Admittedly, in the present case, the vehicle involved is tractor-trailer bearing No.KA-14-TA-1539/40 and the policy issued is Miscellaneous and Special Type of Vehicles Policy B Package. The tractor- trailer shall be used only for agricultural purposes and forestry purposes. Upon these factual matrix involved in the present case, the above point Nos.(3) and (4) are considered. 40. Section 2(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act, 1988’) stipulates as follows: - 37 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 “2(3) “axle weight” means in relation to an axle of a vehicle the total weight transmitted by the several wheels attached to that axle to the surface on which the vehicle rests; 41. Section 2(13) of the Act, 1988 reads as follows: “2(13) “goods” includes livestock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle;” 42. Section 2(14) of the Act, 1988 reads as follows: “2(14) “good 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; - 38 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 43. Section 2(21) of the Act, 1988, reads as follows: “2(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500] kilo grams; 44. Section 2(31) of the Act, 1988, reads as follows: “2(31) “permit” means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle; 45. Section 2(44) of the Act, 1988, stipulates as follows: “2(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;” - 39 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 46. Section 2(46) of the Act, 1988, reads as follows: “2(46) “trailer” means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn of motor vehicle; 47. Section 2(47) of the Act, 1988, reads as follows: “2(47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle; 48. Rule 2 (b) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short ‘Rules, 1989) defines as follows: “2(b) "agricultural tractor" means any mechanically propelled 4-wheel vehicle designed to work with suitable implements for various field operations and/or trailers to transport agricultural materials. Agricultural tractor is a non-transport vehicle; - 40 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 49. Rule 2(c) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 defines as follows: “2(c) "agricultural trailer" means a trailer generally left uncovered with single/double axle construction which is coupled to an agricultural tractor by means of two hooks and predominantly used for transporting agricultural materials;]” 50. In the present case, the vehicle involved is tractor - trailer. According to the definition of above stated, ‘tractor’ means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed for carrying any load other than equipment used for the purpose of transportation. So basically, the tractor means, is an engine which is not supposed to carry any goods. Trailer means, any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by a tractor. The trailer cannot move itself, unless it is drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Therefore, considering the definitions of motor - 41 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 vehicle or tractor - trailer, both components of tractor- trailer constitute a motor vehicle. The trailer does not have independent force having made to run by any internal force. The trailer is made use of for transportation when attached to any motor vehicle or tractor for carrying goods. 51. Considering the definition of ‘transport vehicle’ as mentioned in Section 2(47) of the Act, 1988, both tractor- trailer, when combined and when it is integrated and is made combination of one component vehicle constitutes a goods carriage vehicle for transportation purpose. As per Rules 2(b) & 2(c) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, ‘agricultural trailer’ means a trailer generally left uncovered with single/double axle construction, which is coupled to an agricultural tractor by means of tow hooks and predominantly used for transporting agricultural materials. Therefore, considering all the definitions enshrined in the Act and Rules as above - 42 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 discussed, trailer does not have independent source of engine to move independently unless attached with a tractor by hooks and is used predominantly for transportation of agricultural materials. According to the Rules 2(b) and 2(c) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the agricultural tractor is non-transport vehicle. Therefore, it is not public service vehicle. But when agricultural tractor is attached with agricultural trailer, then the whole component of tractor-trailer is a goods carriage vehicle, thus, it is transport vehicle. Therefore, when it is transport vehicle, which means completely made up of use for private service vehicle. 52. Section 2(33) of the Act, 1988 defines ‘private service vehicle’ as follows: “2(33) “private service vehicle” means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying - 43 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes;” 53. Section 2(35) of the Act, 1988 defines public service vehicle as follows: “2(35) “public service vehicle” means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage, and stage carriage; 54. Therefore, the combination of tractor- trailer is a non-transport vehicle, but it is a goods vehicle for the purpose of private use for the trade or business purposes, otherwise than for hire or reward and does not include a motor vehicle to use for public purposes. Therefore, the tractor- trailer is non-transport vehicle and a private service vehicle meant for carrying goods is a private service vehicle. This shall not be used for hire or reward purpose. - 44 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 55. Then the question comes to before the Court considering Section 147 of M.V Act, 1988. 56. Section 147 of M.V Act, 1988 reads as follows: “147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. - (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which - (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b)insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) – (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the motor vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a transport vehicle, except gratuitous passengers of a goods vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in a public place. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the death of or bodily injury to - 45 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place, notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained under any other law for the time being in force, for the purposes of third party insurance related to either death of a person or grievous hurt to a person, the Central Government shall prescribe a base premium and the liability of an insurer in relation to such premium for an insurance policy under sub-section (1) in consultation with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected, a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a policy of Insurance issued before the commencement of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 shall be continued on the existing terms under the contract and the provisions of this Act - 46 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 shall apply as if this Act had not been amended by the said Act. (5) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules or regulations made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the specified time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.” 57. Section 41(4) of the Act, 1988 requires the Registering Authority to specify in the certificate of registration the type of motor vehicle on the basis of notification issued by Central Government, having regard to design, construction and use of the motor vehicle. In exercise of such a power, the Central Government has issued a notification on 05.11.2004, which is referred in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of - 47 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 Mounesh V. Thimmanna and another7. The notification has classified the vehicle as a transport vehicle and a non- transport vehicle depending upon the nature of use of vehicle. 58. In the said notification, the tractor is at item (x) in non-transport category. Trailers to carry personal effects are at item (xi) in non-transport category. Whereas, trailers at item (vi) is found in transport category. Therefore, from these particulars, it is evident that a trailer is a transport vehicle unless there is a declaration by owner at the time of registration that the same will be used to carry personal effects exclusively, in which event it will be a non-transportable vehicle as per definition of “goods carriage” under Section 2(14) of the Act. 59. The agricultural tractor is a non-transport vehicle when compared with agricultural trailer, a goods 7 2011 ACJ 2054 - 48 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 vehicle, combination of both these vehicles becomes a goods vehicle or goods carriage within the definition of Section 2(14) of the Act. Therefore, the agricultural tractor- trailer is a transport vehicle under Section 2(47) of the Act. Once it is held that the agricultural tractor- trailer is a transport vehicle, it requires permit under Section 66(1) of the Act to transport agricultural materials which are goods under the Act. Unless such vehicle is exempted under Section 66(3) of the Act. 60. In the case of Mounesh v. Thimmanna (stated supra) and in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri Marythi and others8, this Court has held that agricultural tractor- trailer is a goods vehicle. Therefore, the whole component of tractor- trailer is a goods vehicle. 61. As discussed above while answering point No.1, it is proved that the appellant has used his tractor- trailer 8 ILR 2011 KAR 4139 - 49 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 for transportation of Niligiri poles for himself and therefore, the tractor- trailer is not used for hire and reward purpose. Therefore, the above point No.3 is answered holding there is no violation of insurance policy. Hence, this point is answered only for academic purpose. 62. When the tractor- trailer is used by any other person other than the owner for agricultural purpose or for forestry purposes, whether it can be termed as the tractor was given for hire and reward purpose and can it be termed as there is violation of conditions of the insurance policy. 63. The question for consideration in this regard is that, whether the insurance company is empowered to incorporate such conditions in the insurance policy to avoid liability against the owner in respect of an agricultural tractor - trailer. 64. Section 147(3) of Act, 1988 reads as follows: - 50 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 ““147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. - (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected, a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Xxx (5) Xxx (6) xxx 65. Therefore, Section 147(3) of the Act mandates the insurer to issue certificate of insurance in the prescribed form containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued. Rule 141 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 specifies that the insurer shall issue to every holder of a policy of - 51 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 insurance a certificate of insurance in Form No.51 in respect of each such vehicle. 66. Rule 141 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows: “141. Certificate of insurance.--An authorized insurer shall issue to every holder of a policy of insurance, a certificate of insurance in Form 51 in respect of each vehicle.” 67. For more clarification, Form No.51 is extracted as follows: FORM 51 [Refer Rule 141] Certificate of insurance in respect of ............................ Certificate No..................... Policy No……………………. 1. Registration mark of the vehicle insured ………………… 2. Description of the vehicle ………………… 3. Make and year of manufacture ………………… 4. [Engine number or motor number in the case of Battery Operated Vehicles] ..................................... Chassis number ……………………………………….. [4A.FASTag ID …………………………………………. 5. Carrying capacity ………………………………………… 6. Name and address of the insured ………..…………………….. 7. Effective date and time of - 52 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 commencement of insurance …………………………………….. 8. Date of expiry of insurance ……………………………………... 9. Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive:— Stage carriage/contract Any person including insured: carriage/private service Provided that a person driving vehicle holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not qualified from holding or obtaining such a licence: Provided also that the person holding an effective learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of passengers at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Goods carriage Any person including insured : Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence: Provided also that the person holding an effective learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of rule 3 of the - 53 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Non-transport vehicles Any person including insured: Provided that a person driving holds an Effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not qualified from holding or obtaining such a licence: 10. Limitations as to use:— Stage carriage/contract The policy covers use only carriage/goods carriage/ under a permit within the private service vehicle meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or such carriage falling under sub-section (3) of section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The policy does not cover use for— (a) organised racing (b) speed testing. 11. Private service The policy covers use Vehicle and non- for any purpose other than— transport vehicle (a) hire or reward, (b) organised racing, or (c) speed testing. We hereby certify that the policy to which this certificate relates as well as this certificate of insurance are issued in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X or XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” - 54 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 68. Item No.10 in the above said Rule relates to limitation as to use in respect of stage carriage, contract carriage, goods carriage, private service vehicle. The right side of item No.10 shows that certificate is required to specify that the policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage falling under sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The policy does not cover use for (a) organized racing, or (b) speed testing. 69. Once, it is held that the agricultural tractor- trailer is a transport vehicle as discussed above, it requires a permit under Section 66(1) of the Act to transport agricultural materials which are goods under the Act, unless, such vehicle is exempted under Section 66(3) of the Act. 70. Section 66 of the Act, 1988 reads as follows: “66. Necessity for permits. - (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the - 55 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage: Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. [Provided also that where a transport vehicle has been issued any permit or permits, as well as a licence under this Act, such vehicle may be used either under the permit, or permits, so issued to it, or under such licence, at the discretion of the vehicle owner.] (2)The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for drawing of any trailer or semi- trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: - 56 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 [Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailer.] (3)The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply--- (a) to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise; (b) to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleansing, road watering or conservancy purposes; (c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; (d) to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses; (e) to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety; (f) to any transport vehicle used for any other public purpose as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf; (g) to any transport vehicle used by a person who manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf; (h) [* * *] - 57 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 (i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms; (j) subject to such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to any transport vehicle purchased in one State and proceeding to a place, situated in that State or in any other State, without carrying any passenger or goods; (k) to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle; (l) [* * *] (m) to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances, is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination; (n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify; (o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of, the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or (p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair. - 58 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 [(q) to any transport vehicle having been issued a licence under a scheme, under sub- section (3) of section 67 or sub-section (1) of section 88A, or plying under such orders as may be issued by the Central Government or by the State Government.] (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), sub-section (1) shall, if the State Government by rule made under section 96 so prescribes, apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver.” 71. Section 67(1)(d)(i) and Section 67(2) of the Act empowers the State Government to fix fares and freights in respect of transport vehicles. 72. Section 2(12) of the Act, 1988, defines ‘fares’ as follows: “2(12) “fares” includes sums payable for a season ticket or in respect of the hire of a contract carriage; 73. This fare relates to contract and stage carriage vehicles. The word ‘freight’ is not defined under the Act. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘freight’ means hire or charges for transport of goods/cargo. Therefore, a - 59 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 tractor- trailer being a transport vehicle there cannot be any prohibition under the Act for use of such vehicle for hire or reward but the only limitation is that the freight charged will have to be in compliance with the maximum and minimum freight fixed by the notification. 74. The tractor- trailer being an agricultural goods vehicle and is a transport vehicle and is meant for transportation of agricultural and forestry produce, therefore, if such tractor- trailer is being used for transportation of agricultural and forestry produce either by owner or by other person other than the owner cannot be termed as hire or reward. Therefore, incorporating this condition in the insurance policy is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Therefore, the insurance company is not empowered to put such conditions in the insurance policy. - 60 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 75. Considering column No.10 of Form No.51 under the caption “Limitation as to use”, the category of vehicles mentioned therein, it is stipulated that the policy does not cover the use of the vehicle for organized racing or speed testing. If the tractor- trailer is coming within item No.10 of Form No.51, there is no limitation put not covering the purpose hire or reward. What is the prohibition in clause 10 in respect of category of vehicle stated in item No.10, the policy prohibits organized racing or speed testing. Therefore, if any extra condition is put under the insurance policy, such as, prohibiting of hire or reward for transportation of agricultural or forestry produce is ultra vires to the Act and Rules. 76. Section 147(5) read with Section 149(1) of the Act specifies that the insurer shall satisfy the award obtained by third parties in respect of liability which the policy purports to cover notwithstanding the entitlement of the insurer to avoid or cancel the policy. The Hon'ble - 61 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Inderjit Kaur9, at paragraph No.8 held as under: “8. Section 149 refers to the duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third-party risks. Sub-section (1) thereof reads thus: “149. (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) or under the provisions of Section 163-A is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment-debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments.” 77. Thus, by incorporating Section 147(5) and 149(1), the third parties who are covered under the policy are completely protected from the invasion of any condition put in the policy. 9 (1998) 1 SCC 371 - 62 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 78. Section 149(2) empowers the insurer to avoid liability against the insured, by proving violations of conditions of the policy which are specified therein at Section 149(2)(a)(i) to (ii) of the defense enumerated under Section 149(2)(b) of the Act. 79. Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) specified that it is open to the insurer to avoid liability against the insured by proving that the vehicle is used for the purpose not allowed by the permit, where the vehicle is s transport vehicle. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here principle of law down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi10, at paragraph Nos.13 to 15 of the said judgment reads as under: “13. To answer the question, it is necessary to find out on what grounds the insurer is entitled to defend/contest against a claim by an injured or dependants of the victims of motor vehicle accident. Under Section 96(2) of 1939 Act which corresponds to 10 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC) - 63 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 Section 149(2) of 1988 Act, an insurance company has no right to be a party to an action by the injured person or dependants of deceased against the insured. However, the said provision gives the insurer the right to be made a party to the case and to defend it. It is, therefore, obvious that the said right is a creature of the statute and its content depends on the provisions of the statute. After the insurer has been made a party to a case or claim, the question arises what are the defences available to it under the statute. The language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. It shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, he is entitled to defend the action on grounds enumerated in the sub-section, namely, sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act, and no other ground is available to him. The insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other ground which is available to an insured or breach of any other conditions of the policy which do not find place in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. If an insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer than what the statute has specifically provided for. 14. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of 1988 Act clearly indicates in what manner sub-section (2) of Section 149 has to be interpreted. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 provides that no insurer to whom the notice referred to in sub- section (2) or sub-section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any - 64 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 such judgment or award as is referred to in sub- section (1) or in such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2) or in the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, as the case may be. The expression 'manner' employed in sub-section (7) of Section 149 is very relevant which means an insurer can avoid its liability only in accordance with what has been provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 149. It, therefore, shows that the insurer can avoid its liability only on the statutory defences expressly provided in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. We are, therefore, of the view that an insurer cannot avoid its liability on any other grounds except those mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act. 15. It is relevant to note that the Parliament, while enacting sub-section (2) of Section 149 only specified some of the defences which are based on conditions of the policy and, therefore, any other breach of conditions of the policy by the insured which does not find place in sub-section (2) of Section 149 cannot be taken as a defence by the insurer. If the Parliament had intended to include the breach of other conditions of the policy as a defence, it could have easily provided any breach of conditions of insurance policy in sub-section (2) of Section 149. If we permit the insurer to take any other defence other than those specified in sub- section (2) of Section 149, it would mean we are adding more defences to insurer in the statute which is neither found in the Act nor was intended to be included.” - 65 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 80. In paragraph 14 of the above said judgment, it is stated that the insurer cannot incorporate conditions other than those mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act. In paragraph 14, it is specifically held that expression 'manner' employed in sub-section (7) of Section 149 is very relevant which means an insurer can avoid its liability only in accordance with what has been provided for in sub- section (2) of Section 149. To support the conclusion, the Apex Court gave reasons in paragraph No.15 thereof. 81. Where the vehicle is a non-transport vehicle, which are not covered by permit, it is open to the insurer to incorporate a condition in the policy that the vehicle shall not be used for hire or reward, which is in compliance with Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) of the Act. If the insurer is allowed to raise a defence that the vehicle shall not be used for hire or reward, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, the same amounts to allowing the insurer to avoid its liability by adding other grounds apart from those - 66 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 enumerated in Section 149(2) of the Act and the same will defeat the object and intent of legislative intent of Section 149(7) of the Act, which specified that the manner of avoiding liability is in the manner provided in Section 149(2) of the Act and not by any other means. 82. Here it is worth to mention that Form No.51 prescribed under Rule 141 of M.V. Rules, 1989 is in conformity with Section 149(2) of the Act. However, the certificate of insurance and the policy issued by insurer is defeating the provisions of Section 149(2) and (7) read with Rule 141 and the Form No.51 prescribed by Act and Rules. Section 149(7) specifies that such a defence is impermissible to avoid liability against the insured. 83. Provisions of Chapter XI is a special legislation creating third parties a right to directly recover the compensation awarded in their favor and all defences of insurer to avoid liability are made ineffective by section 147(5) r/w section 149(1) of the Act. It is worthwhile to - 67 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 refer paragraph Nos.7 and 8 in the case of Inderjit Kaur stated supra and the same is held as under: “7. Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for the insurance of motor vehicles against third-party risks. Section 146 thereunder states that no person shall use or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle a policy of insurance that complies with the requirements of the chapter. Section 147 sets out the requirements of policies and the limits of liability. A policy of insurance, by reason of this provision, must be a policy which is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer. Sub- section (5) reads thus: “147. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.” 8. Section 149 refers to the duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third-party risks. Sub- section (1) thereof reads thus: “149. (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by - 68 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) or under the provisions of Section 163-A is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment-debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments.” 84. So also, by enacting Sections 149(2) r/w 149(7) thereof, the right of the insurer to insert defences of their choice to avoid liability to indemnify the insured is taken away by restricting their defences to statutory defences enumerated u/s 149(2) only that too in the manner provided in section 149(2) and by no other defences. 85. In the instant case, the insurer is taking shelter under the India Motor Tariff, issued under Insurance - 69 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 Regulatory and Development Authority Act 1999, and section 64-UC of Insurance Act 1938. If there is conflict between Motor Vehicles Act and General Provisions of Insurance under other enactments in relation to requirement of insurance of motor vehicles, the special provisions and the Rules framed there-under the Motor Vehicles Act will prevail. Section 28 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 clearly states that the provisions of that Act not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. If there is conflict between other Acts and MV Act, the provisions of MV Act prevail over IRDA Act and the Regulations under IRDA Act. Hence, the policy as well as the certificate of insurance will have to be in conformity with MV Act and the Rules framed there-under. The contention of the insurer, that the conditions of policy to the effect that the agricultural tractor-trailer shall not be used for hire or reward is repugnant to the provisions of section 149(2) of M V Act, 1989 r/w Rule 141 and Form. - 70 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 No.51 of Central M. V. Rules 1989 and the same are inoperative. Hence, the insurer cannot avoid liability against insured by taking defence that the insured shall not use the agricultural tractor-trailer for hire or reward on the basis, that such condition is incorporated in the policy, as the same is ultra-vires the provisions of section 149(2) of M V Act r/w Rule 141 and Form No.51 of Central M. V. Rules 1989. 86. It is pertinent to mention that the legislature while reenacting Chapter XI in 2019, has not changed the provisions of earlier provisions made by it under section 147(5) and section 149(2) and (7) of the Act. [Section 150 of Amendment Act 2019 is corresponding to earlier section 149 of the Act]. 87. Therefore, while answering these point Nos.3 and 4, where the vehicle is agricultural tractor- trailer is categorized as transport vehicle, the conditions incorporated in the policy that for using the tractor-trailer - 71 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010533352012 NC: 2026:KHC:52625 MFA No. 7293 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 7294 of 2012 MFA No. 7295 of 2012 for hire and reward is ultra-vires to the provisions as above stated. Therefore, such conditions ought not to be incorporated, where the vehicle is an agricultural tractor- trailer. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the affirmative. 88. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeals are allowed. 2. The judgment and award dated 28.04.2012 passed in MVC Nos.117/2010, 119/2010 and 120/2010 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Bhadravathi, are hereby modified holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants by indemnifying the owner of the tractor - trailer. 3. Draw award accordingly. 4. No costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE KA/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85