JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the owners against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (2), Una in M.A.C. Petition No. 36 of 1997; decided on 23.2.2001.
2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the claimants are the parents of the deceased Gurpal Singh. Gurpal Singh along with one Chint Ram was travelling on tractor No. HP-20 4765 which is owned by the appellants. This tractor was being driven by Ram Kumar. Admittedly, the tractor met with an accident on 13.12.1996 at village Jhangoli, Tehsil Amb, District Una. Chint Ram died on the spot and Gurpal Singh suffered injuries who was shifted to PG1, Chandigarh and died later on. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act in which it was alleged that the deceased had been hired as a mason by Chint Ram and Chint Ram had hired the tractor in question for carriage of iron (saria) from Mubarakpur. According to the claimants Chint Ram and Gurpal Singh were sitting on the saria on their return journey when the accident had occurred.
3. It would be pertinent to mention that the driver and owners filed a common reply. In this reply, it was alleged that the owners are big landlords of the village and they were raising construction for stacking fodder and agricultural equipment. According to the reply the driver had loaded some agricultural implements and some other materials in the tractor to be used for construction for the purpose of stacking fodder and was coming to the village. In this reply, it was stated that the deceased was engaged as a labourer with the tractor.
4. The insurance company contested the claim on various grounds. According to it, the vehicle was being used in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the vehicle was not meant for carrying passengers.
5. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence came to the conclusion that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy inasmuch as the vehicle was being used for hire and reward and, therefore, the insurance company was not responsible. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellants owners.
6. I have heard Mr. N.K. Thakur, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sanjiv Kuthiala, Mr. Baldev Singh and Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the respondents.
7. In this case, the main questions which arise are: (i) Whether the passengers can be carried in a tractor-trailer? and (ii) Whether the tractor was being used in violation of the insurance policy?
8. 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.
9. When a trailer is attached to the tractor, the trailer can be used for carriage of goods. However, the trailer cannot be used for carriage of passengers. The question whether the tractor becomes a goods vehicle when a trailer has been attached to it has been left open by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma . The Apex Court considered these questions and held as follows:
(15) A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of ‘goods carriage’ contained in Section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. 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 the ‘goods carriage’ as contained in Section 2 (14) of Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decision 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 1994 amendment.
10. In view of the above law laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that no passengers can be carried in a tractor or a trailer. Furthermore, in the present case, I am of the opinion that the tractor was used for hire and reward. A clear cut case has been set up by the claimants in the claim petition that the tractor had been hired by Chint Ram for carriage of saria. Though this version was denied and the case set up by the owners was that in fact their own material was being carried in the tractor, no explanation was given as to how Chint Ram was travelling in the tractor.
11. As noted above, a joint reply was filed by the owners and the driver. They should have stated in what capacity Chint Ram was travelling in the tractor. Even in their oral statements nothing in this regard has been stated. Their only defence is that they were raising the construction for the purpose of stacking agricultural and other materials. No other independent evidence has been led to show that actually any construction was being raised. In my opinion, a false case was set up by the owners so that liability could be fastened upon the insurance company. The tractor, obviously was being used for carriage of goods owned by Chint Ram and this was in violation of the terms of the insurance policy as well as of Motor Vehicles Act. Both the insurance policy Exh. RX and the registration certificate, Exh. RY clearly indicate that the vehicle was only meant for agricultural use. Another document annexed with the petition is R2 which is the claim form submitted by the claimants in which they admitted that Chint Ram had died and Gurpal Singh had suffered injuries. It is also admitted that saria was being carried in the trailer of the tractor. In fact no trailer has been insured with insurance company and even if the deceased was travelling in the trailer then also the insurance company was not liable.
12. As far as quantum is concerned, I find that the amount awarded by learned Tribunal below is just and reasonable and calls for no interference.
In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed with no Order as to costs.