JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu (hereafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Petition No. 16 of 1997, decided on 26.4.1999.
2. The facts necessary for decision of the case are that the claimants are the legal heirs of Narender Singh. According to the allegations made by them in the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) the deceased had hired tractor No. HP-49-0317, which is owned by Lotam Ram. He had hired this tractor to collect pine cones. The tractor at the relevant time is stated to be driven by Gulab Singh. As per the averments, the deceased had gone to village Tung to collect pine cones but the same had not been collected and stacked by the labourers, therefore, he was coming back in the empty tractor which met with an accident resulting, in death of Narender Singh.
3. The owner of the tractor denied the accident. He also stated that he had never hired out the tractor to any person. According to the owner, no accident with his tractor had taken place. The driver of the tractor, however, admitted in his written statement that the tractor had been hired and that the deceased was travelling in the tractor. He, however, denied his negligence. The Insurance Company in its written statement took up the ground that the Insurance Company was not liable since the tractor in question was to be plied only for agricultural purposes and could not be hired out and no passengers could be carried in the same. It was alleged that there was a violation of the terms of the police and, hence, the Insurance Company was not liable.
4. The Tribunal after recording the evidence held that the deceased had died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. It held the claimants entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,29,500. The Tribunal held that since the deceased had hired the tractor and was not a gratuitous passenger, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the amount of compensation. Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company.
5. The only question arising in the appeal is whether the deceased was an authorized passenger in the tractor or not?
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased was travelling on the tractor. A tractor is not a goods vehicle. Section 2(44) defines “tractor” as under:
“tractor” means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller.
It is, thus, clear that a tractor is not meant to carry any passengers or to carry any load. A trailer has been defined in Section 2(46) as under:
“trailer” means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.
7. When a trailer is attached to the tractor, the trailer can be used for carriage of goods. However, the trailer cannot be used for carriage of passengers. The question whether the tractor becomes a goods vehicle when a trailer has been attached to it has been left open by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Chinnamma . The Apex Court considered these questions and held as follows:
16. A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of goods carriage contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was mean to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to the market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. The tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of “goods carriage” as contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decisions of this Court in Asha Rani and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991 i.e., much prior to coming into force of the 1994 amendment.
8. In this case the owner has admitted that the tractor was meant for agricultural use. The policy of the Insurance Company has been proved on record. The same is Ex. R-4. There is no coverage for any passenger being carried in the tractor. The tractor could not have been vised to carry passengers for hire or reward. Therefore, there has been a violation of the terms of the policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable.
9. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the owner, argued that there was no breach of the policy on behalf of the owner since the owner had not permitted the deceased to be carried in the tractor. The owner while appearing in the witness box has totally denied the accident and has not stated a word as to whether he had instructed the driver not to carry passengers. Therefore, the owner cannot say that he has not breached the policy.
10. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel has relied upon judgment of this Court delivered in Smt. Krishni and Ors. v. Amar Nath and Ors. I (1997) ACC 251 (DB) : 1997 (1) SLC 37. He also relied upon a Full Court Judgment of the Gujarat High Court National Insurance Company Ltd., Ahmedabad and Anr. v. Nathibai Chaturabhuj and Ors. 1982 ACJ 153. In fact, another Division Bench of this Court took a different view in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Dhalu Devi and Ors. II (1998) ACC 433 (DB) : 1997 (1) SLC 437. Be that as it may, in view of the pronouncements of the Apex Court in Chinnamma’s case (supra), this Court is bound by the law laid down by the Apex Court. It would not be out of place to mention that the judgments cited related to the accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and not under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the Insurance Company is allowed. The award made by the Tribunal is set aside to the extent that the Insurance Company is exonerated of its liability. However, in view of the fact that the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount of compensation, it would serve no purpose to permit it to withdraw the said amount and drive the claimant to another round of litigation to recover the compensation awarded from the owner. The amount deposited by it shall be released in favour of the claimants. The Insurance Company may recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner by filing appropriate execution proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without being required to file separate suit or proceedings. The present judgment shall be treated to be the decision of the dispute between the insurer and the insured.
12. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No orders as to costs.