A.Raja Mohammad v. Minnalkodi

(Principal District Judge), Perambalur dated 21.08.2001 made inM.C.O.P.No.316/1999. The first respondent (owner of the vehicle)in the above said MCOP has filed C.M.A.No.73 of 2002. The secondrespondent (Insurer) in the MCOP has preferred C.M.A.No.948/2002.The claimants before the Tribunal have been arrayed as respondents1 to 4 in both the appeals. The appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002figures as the respondent No.5 in C.M.A.No.948/2002, whereas theappellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002 figures as the respondent No.5 inC.M.A.No.73/2002.2. Mr.Rajendran, the husband of the first respondent and alsothe father of minor respondents 2 to 4 in both the appeals died inan accident that occurred at about 1.30 a.m on 13.02.1992 while hewas travelling in a tractor bearing Regn.No.TN-45 7871 belonging tothe appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002/first respondent in MCOPNo.316/1999. The accident is said to have taken place nearJayankondam Pudhu Chavadi. Contending that the above said deceasedRajendran, while travelling in the said tractor along with hisgoods after loading his paddy bags in the tractor suffered a fatalfall from the tractor as the same was driven by its driver in arash and negligent manner, the respondents 1 to 4 herein asdependents of the deceased made a claim before the Tribunal for asum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. The claim was made againstthe appellants in both the appeals, who figured as respondents 1and 2 in the MCOP, on the ground that the appellant inC.M.A.No.73/2002 was the owner and the appellant inC.M.A.No.948/2002 was the insurer on the relevant date of the abovesaid tractor involved in the accident. 3. The claim was resisted by the insurer, namely the appellantin C.M.A.No.948/2002 contending that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of thetrailer bearing Regn.No.TN-31 1022 were not made parties to theMCOP and that the said appellant (insurer) was not liable toreimburse the owner of the tractor as the trailer was not coveredby the insurance policy issued by the appellant inC.M.A.No.948/2002. It was also contended therein that the deceasedperson travelled along with 32 others in the above said trailerattached to the tractor insured with the appellant inC.M.A.No.948/2002 and that hence the said appellant could not bemulcted with the liability to reimburse the owner of the tractor tothe extent of the compensation he might be directed to pay to theclaimants. 4. The appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002, who figured as the firstrespondent in the MCOP admitted that his tractor alone was insuredwith the United India Insurance Company (appellant inC.M.A.No.948/2002). However, the appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002(first respondent in the MCOP) contended that there was nonegligence on the part of the driver of the tractor and hence theclaimants (respondents 1 to 4 in the appeals) were not entitled toclaim compensation on the basis of fault under Section 166 of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Motor Vehicles Act. It was the further contention of the owner ofthe vehicle (appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 / first respondent inthe MCOP) that even assuming that there was negligence on the partof the driver, since the tractor stood insured with the secondrespondent in the MCOP (appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002), as per theterms of the contract of insurance the entire liability should beshouldered by the insurer. The said stand was taken by the ownerof the vehicle based on his contention that though the tractor andtrailer were assigned separate registration numbers, they could notbe construed to be two different vehicles as the trailer itselfcould not move without being pulled by the tractor and that onbeing attached to the tractor, it became part of the tractoritself.5. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence brought beforeit on either side, came to the conclusion that there was negligenceon the part of the driver of the tractor and hence the firstrespondent in the MCOP (appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002) was liableto pay compensation to the dependents of the deceased (respondents1 to 4 in the appeals). The Tribunal assessed the quantum ofcompensation at Rs.1,51,200/-. It also came to the conclusion thatthe tractor alone had been insured with the second respondent inthe MCOP (appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002) and hence the liabilityof the insurer to reimburse the owner should be restricted to 50%of the total amount of compensation. Thus the Tribunal passed anaward directing the second respondent in the MCOP (appellant inC.M.A.No.948/2002) to pay a sum of Rs.75,600/- being 50% of thetotal amount of compensation in discharge of its liability as perthe terms of the insurance contract and directed the firstrespondent in the MCOP/appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 (owner of thevehicle) to pay the balance from his pocket.6. The respondents 1 to 4 in the appeals as claimants beforethe Tribunal had made a claim of Rs.2,00,000/- alone ascompensation. The deceased was aged about 25 years at the time ofhis death. The amount claimed by the respondents 1 to 4 in theappeals (claimants) in fact was only a meagre amount. However, theTribunal chose to reduce the said amount and fix the total amountof compensation at Rs.1,51,200/-. The respondents 1 to 4 in theappeals (claimants) have not chosen to air their grievanceregarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal byfiling a separate appeal or cross-objection. The owner and theinsurer alone have chosen to prefer these appeals on the questionof the claimants' right to make a claim for compensation on thebasis of fault and also on the question of the extent of theliability of the insurer.7. As the claim was resisted by the insured, namely the ownerof the vehicle on merits, the insurer, namely the appellant inC.M.A.No.948/2002 (second respondent in the MCOP) cannot maintainthe appeal on the question of negligence or quantum ofcompensation. In fact the insurer (appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has not challenged the award on the question of negligence or onthe ground that the total amount of compensation awarded wasexcessive and hence unjustifiable. The only issue raised in theappeal filed by the insurer in C.M.A.No.948/2002 is whether theTribunal was right in fastening 50% of the liability on the insurerwhen the tractor alone and not the trailer was covered by theinsurance policy issued by it.8. On the other hand, the appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 (firstrespondent in MCOP No.316/1999) has challenged the award on thefollowing grounds:-i) The accident took place due to the negligence onthe part of the deceased and there was no rashness ornegligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle; andii) The tractor having been insured with the secondrespondent in the MCOP by a valid insurance policy whereinextra premium had also been collected for covering therisks involved to persons engaged in loading andunloading., the entire liability to pay compensation tothe dependents of the deceased should have been fastenedon the insurer, namely the second respondent in the MCOP(appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002).9. The arguments advanced by Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counselfor the appellant in C.M.A.No.73 of 2002, by Mr.M.B.Gopalan,learned counsel for the appellant in C.M.A.No.948 of 2002 and byMr.K.Gandhikumar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 inboth the appeals were heard. The materials available on record,including the judgment of the tribunal and the memorandum of appealwere also perused.10. Even though the owner of the tractor has chosen tochallenge the award of the Tribunal based on the contention thatthere was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicleand that the deceased fell down from the tractor due to his ownnegligence, the plea of the owner of the vehicle in this regard isnot free from ambiguity. The claimants have also framed the claimpetition without disclosing the fact that, at the time of accidentthe tractor bearing Regn.No.TN-45 7871 was driven with a trailerbearing Regn.No.TN-31 1022 attached to it. Recitals have been madein the claim petition to the effect that the deceased, afterloading his paddy bags in the tractor, was travelling in the saidtractor along with the paddy. There is want of pleading as to inwhich portion of the tractor the paddy bags were loaded and whetherthe deceased was travelling sitting on the tractor portion ortrailer portion of the composite vehicle. However, during trial,evidence was led through P.W.1 as if the deceased was travellingseated in the tractor portion of the composite vehicle and he wasthrown from the said tractor following which the rear wheel of thetrailer ran over him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. R.W.1 has also stated in his evidence that the deceasedRajendran was travelling sitting on the engine portion of thetractor. He was examined on behalf of the first respondent. Hewould admit during cross-examination that he was aware of the rulethat no other person except the driver can travel in the engineportion of the tractor. However, he would state that despite hiswarning that he should not be seated on the engine portion of thetractor, the deceased sat on the engine and travelled. Ex.A1 isthe certified copy of the FIR registered by the police regardingthe accident concerned in this case. In the complaint given to thepolice, it has been stated that the informant and 32 others weretravelling from Neduncheri to Sirukalathur in the tractor bearingRegn.No.TN-45 7871; that the said tractor was driven by its driverat a high speed and was swerved towards left applying sudden brakeon seeing the lorry coming in the opposite direction as a result ofwhich the deceased Rajendran was thrown from the vehicle and wasrun over by the front and back wheels of the trailer attached tothe tractor. It has also been stated therein that the tractorcould not be stopped immediately after the deceased was thrown fromthe tractor and the tractor travelled for about 240 feet before itcould be stopped by the driver. The said particulars are reflectedin the testimony of P.W.2 also.12. In Ex.A1 it is not made clear as to in which part of thetractor the deceased was seated when the accident took place. Onthe other hand, P.W.2 and R.W.1 would state that the deceased wasseated on the engine portion of the tractor. Perhaps the saidstand was taken keeping in mind that the trailer had not beeninsured as on the date of accident. Admittedly, the tractor aswell as the trailer belonged to the appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002(first respondent in the MCOP). It is also admitted that there wasinsurance coverage for the tractor alone and not for the trailer ason the date of accident. However, on 17.02.1992, four days afterthe accident the appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002 has chosen to getan endorsement in the original policy by paying additional premiumof Rs.500/-. Copy of the endorsement dated 17.02.1992 in respectof the original policy has been produced and marked as Ex.R2. Theoriginal policy is Ex.R1. The claim form submitted by theappellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 to the insurance company has beenproduced and marked as Ex.R3. In the said claim form signed by theappellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 (owner of the vehicle), it has beenstated that totally 17 persons including the deceased, hired thetractor attached with the trailer for transporting their paddy andthus 17 persons who were coolies. It was also stated therein thatthe deceased Rajendran who was in the trailer, due to slumberslipped down and died on the spot.13. There is a material contradiction regarding the number ofpersons transported in the tractor/trailer between the evidence ofP.W.2 and the particulars found in Ex.R3. P.W.2 would state thattotally 7 or 8 persons were travelling in the vehicle, whereas https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R.W.1 would admit in his evidence that as many as 32 personstravelled in the vehicle. He has also state in Ex.R3 that thedeceased and others were travelling only in the trailer portion.However, a contradictory version has also been given by him to theeffect that the deceased travelled sitting on the engine portion ofthe tractor despite his advice not to do so. The particulars foundin the claim form marked as Ex.R3 to the effect that the deceaseddue to slumber fell down from the trailer has also been denied byR.W.1. The same results in utter confusion regarding the pleataken by the owner of the vehicle (appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002)/first respondent in the MCOP regarding how the accident took place.Under such circumstances alone, the Tribunal has taken the viewthat there was negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle,which alone resulted in the unfortunate accident. Even though theappellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 would have taken a stand in thegrounds of appeal that there was no negligence on the part of thedriver of the vehicle and it was due to his own negligence thedeceased fell down from the tractor and died, because of the abovesaid contradictions found in the evidence, the learned counselappearing for the appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 was content withmaking only a passing reference to such a stand taken in the appealmemorandum without seriously pressing that point. There is clearevidence in the form of the particulars found in the FIR marked asEx.A1 and the evidence of P.W.2 that the deceased fell down fromthe vehicle because of the rash and negligent driving of thevehicle by its driver and that the vehicle was stopped only aftercovering a distance of nearly 250 feet from the place wherein thedeceased fell down from the vehicle. The same would go to show thatthe vehicle was driven by its driver at uncontrollable speed andwith negligence which alone resulted in the accident. Therefore,this court comes to the conclusion that the finding of the Tribunalthat the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence onthe part of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident isbased on proper appreciation of evidence and that the challengemade to the said finding by the appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 isbound to fail. Accordingly, the said finding of the Tribunal ishereby confirmed.14. As pointed out supra, the deceased was aged about 25 yearsat the time of his death. Though there is no proof of hisearnings, we cannot assess his annual income below the notionalincome as found in the Second Schedule r/w Section 163-A of theMotor Vehicles Act. If the notional income of Rs.15,000/- perannum is adopted and Rs.5,000/- representing 1/3rd of the amount isdeducted from the same, the compensation for loss of dependencyalone will be Rs.1,70,000/- i.e. more than Rs.1,50,000/- as it ispossible to use the multiplier 17. Apart from that for loss ofconsortium, loss of love and affection and for funeral expensessome amount could have been awarded. But, unfortunately theTribunal has not awarded any amount on the above said headings.Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant inC.M.A.No.73/2002 (first respondent in the MCOP) that the amount https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ awarded as compensation is excessive cannot be accepted at all.The total amount awarded by the Tribunal is even below thereasonable amount that can be awarded as compensation. It is a fitcase in which enhancement can be ordered. But, unfortunately theclaimants have not chosen to file any appeal or cross-objection.Therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that the challengemade to the award of the Tribunal regarding the quantum ofcompensation also fails. This court does not see any reason orground for reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.15. As the tractor alone had been insured with the secondrespondent in the MCOP (appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002), theTribunal has chosen to restrict the liability of the insurer to 50%of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The saidpart of the award is challenged by the insurer (second respondentin the MCOP/appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002) contending that theinsurer shall be absolved of its liability to reimburse the insuredin a case of accident caused by a tractor and trailer when thetractor alone was insured. It is not in dispute that the tractoralone was insured with the second respondent in the MCOP/appellantin C.M.A.No.948/2002 as on the date of accident and that there wasno coverage of insurance for the trailer. However, the owner ofthe vehicle (first respondent in the MCOP/appellant inC.M.A.No.73/2002) has contended that though the trailer had notbeen insured it became an integral part of the tractor whenattached with the tractor and hence in an accident involving thecomposite vehicle of tractor-trailer, the insurer of the tractorshould be held liable to reimburse the owner to the entire extent.But the learned counsel for the first respondent in theMCOP/appellant in C.M.A.No.73/2002 is not in a position to cite anyjudgment of the High Court or the Supreme Court in support of hiscontention that the insurance company shall be liable to reimbursethe owner to the entire extent in case of accident caused by thecomposite vehicle tractor-trailer, if the tractor alone had beeninsured. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellantin C.M.A.No.948/2002 has relied on a judgment of a single judge ofthis court in Ramesh and another Vs. Kamatchi Ammal and 4 othersreported in 2000(1) CTC 213. In the above cited judgment a learnedsingle judge of this court relying on another judgment of theKarnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.N.Chandrasekara and others reported in 1997 ACJ 512 has held, "thenon-insurance of the trailer during the relevant point of timewould indeed absolve the Insurance Company of its liability."16. The pertinent question that arises in this case is whetherthe insurance company is liable to pay compensation to thedependents of the deceased in terms of the insurance policy.Admittedly, at the time of accident, the tractor alone stoodinsured with the appellant in C.M.A.No.948/2002 and the trailer wasnot insured with either the said appellant or any other insurancecompany. Only subsequent to the date of accident an additionalpremium was paid for the insurance coverage of the trailer and an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ endorsement was obtained on 17.02.1992. A copy of the endorsementhas been produced and marked as Ex.R2. From the original policymarked as Ex.R1 it is obvious that there was no insurance of therisk of any passengers carried in the vehicle. In fact definitionof "tractor" found in Section 2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988will show that it is a motor vehicle which is not itselfconstructed to carry any load other than equipments used for thepurpose of propulsion. When the said definition is strictlyconstrued, one can easily arrive at a conclusion that no goods orpassenger can be carried in the tractor. The deceased, accordingto the claimants, travelled in the tractor along with hisagricultural produce, namely paddy bags. By making such a plea,the claimants have made an attempt to show that the deceased wastravelling in the vehicle along with his goods as the owner of thegoods. Such an attempt seems to have been made to show that thedeceased was travelling in the vehicle as the owner of the goodstransported therein. But since they were advised that they couldnot claim compensation from the insurance company with which thetractor alone stood insured, the claimants seem to have taken astand that the deceased was travelling in the tractor and not inthe trailer at the time of accident. As pointed out supra, theclaimants have also made a conscious attempt to suppress theparticulars of the trailer by ingeniously drafting the petition inwhich the registration number of the tractor alone was furnished.There is not even a whisper that the tractor was fitted with atrailer. The same seems to have been done with a purpose as theclaimants should have been advised that they could not claimcompensation from the insurer unless they take a stand that thedeceased was travelling in the tractor and not the trailer. 17. Whether the deceased was seated on the tractor or wastravelling either sitting or standing in the trailer portion, itmakes no difference regarding the sustainability of the claim madeagainst the insurer. It is quite obvious from the definition oftractor and also the evidence of R.W.1 that no one excepting thedriver shall be seated in the tractor. It is also obvious from theinsurance policy marked as Ex.R1 that the policy did not cover therisk involved to any person who would have chosen to travel in thetractor seated on it. Section 147 of the Act does not make itmandatory to have a policy covering the risk involved to any personcarried in the tractor. When that is so, unless it is specificallycovered by a contractual clause in the contract of insurance, itcan't be said that the insurance contract shall cover the riskinvolved to any person carried in the tractor. Therefore, even ifthe contention of the claimants that the deceased was travellingseated on the tractor when he fell down and suffered the fatalinjuries can be accepted to be true, the insurance company cannotbe mulcted with the liability to reimburse the owner as theinsurance policy did not cover such a risk. On the other hand, ifit is assumed that the deceased was travelling in the trailer alongwith his goods that will not be enough to mulct the liability onthe insurance company as the accident took place prior to the date https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on which the 1994 amendment came to force. Only by the amendmentAct of 1994, the owners of goods vehicle are mandated to take apolicy covering the risk involved to the owner of the goods or hisauthorised representative travelling along with the goods in thegoods vehicle. The amendment alone made coverage of risk involvedto the owner of goods transported in a goods vehicle or hisauthorise representative travelling along with the goods within theminimum requirement of the policy of insurance. The Hon'ble SupremeCourt in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satpal Singh reported in2000 ACJ 1 (SC) clarified the change made in Section 147 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 with effect from 14.11.1994 in terms ofthe amending Act, Act 54 of 1994 and held that the mandatoryrequirement of having a policy covering the risk involved to theowner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in thegoods vehicle was introduced with effect from the date on which theamendment was brought to force and that prior to the above saiddate the owner of the goods carriage was not obliged to take apolicy covering the risk to such passengers. The Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the said case held that the necessity to cover the riskinvolved to the owner of the goods or his authorised representativecarried in the vehicle within the minimum requirement of insurancepolicy was made applicable prospectively alone and that the changemade in 1994 in legal position was not to be given retrospectiveeffect. The said view was followed in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltdvs. Devireddy Konda Reddy reported in 2003 ACJ 468 (SC) in whichthe following observations has been made." The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is thatprovisions of the Act do not enjoin any statutoryliability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicleinsured for any passenger travelling in a goods carriageand the insurer would have no liability therefor."18. In the case on hand, admittedly the accident took place on13.02.1992. Amendment to Section 147 brought by Act 54 of 1994came into force on 14.11.1994. Therefore, even assuming that thetractor fitted with the trailer chould be construed as a goodsvehicle and that the deceased was travelling in the said vehiclealong with his goods as owner of the goods transported in the saidvehicle, the benefit of the Amendment is not available to theclaimants as the amendment was not given retrospective effect. Itis true that there is no prohibition for the owner of the vehicleto take a larger coverage than the minimum requirement found inSection 147. But such a larger coverage should be proved by theclaimant or by the owner of the vehicle who wants to establish sucha larger coverage. The mere fact that the policy has been issuedas a comprehensive policy or otherwise called "B policy", does notmean that it will cover all the risks which are not mentioned inthe policy or in the endorsements. Any policy other than "Actonly policy" shall be termed a comprehensive policy or 'B' policy.In this case, additional premium was collected for own damage, forpersons employed in connection with the operation and loading and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unloading of motor vehicle and for unlimited coverage of thirdparty property damage. Additional premium was not collected forcoverage of risks to the persons carried in the vehicle as ownersof the goods transported in the vehicle or their authorisedrepresentatives. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can beheld that the risk involved to the deceased was covered by theinsurance policy taken by the first respondent/owner of thevehicle. Taking into consideration the fact that large number ofpersons have been allowed to travel in the vehicle, it has to beconstrued that the vehicle was used for transporting passengers.19. In yet another case, namely in National Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Ajit Kumar reported in 2003 ACJ 1931 (SC), the Hon'ble SupremeCourt made the following observations:-" The difference in the language of 'goods vehicle'as appearing in the old Act and 'goods carriage' in theAct is of significance. A bare reading of the provisionsmakes it clear that the legislative intent was to prohibitgoods vehicle from carrying any passenger. This is clearfrom the expression 'in addition to passenger' ascontained in definition of 'goods vehicle' in the old Act.The position becomes further clear because the expressionused is 'goods carriage' is solely for the 'carriage ofgoods'. Carrying of passengers in a goods carriage is notcontemplated in the Act. There is no provision similar toclause (ii) of the proviso appended to Section 95 of theOld Act prescribing the requirement of insurance policy.Even Section 147 of the Act mandates compulsory coverageagainst death of or bodily injury to any passenger of'public service vehicle'. The proviso makes it furtherclear that the compulsory coverage in respect of driversand conductors of public service vehicle and employeescarried in goods vehicle would be limited to the liabilityunder Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. There is noreference to any passenger in a 'goods carriage'."20. The effect of 1994 amendment was also considered in yetanother case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur reported in 2004 ACJ 428. It was observedtherein as follows:-" It is, therefore, manifest that in spite of theamendment of 1994, the effect of the provision containedin Section 147 with respect to person other than the ownerof goods or his authorised representative remains thesame. Although the owner of the goods or his authorisedrepresentative would now be covered by the policy ofinsurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not theintention of the legislature to provide for liability ofthe insurer with respect to passengers, especiallygratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the time the contract of insurance was entered into, norwas any premium paid to the extent of the benefit ofinsurance to such category of persons."21. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V.Chinnamma & Ors.Reported in 2004(3) ACJ 1909 SC referring to the above said earlierjudgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion thatinsurance of an owner of the goods or his authorised representativetravelling in the vehicle became compulsory with effect only from14.11.1994, the date on which the Amendment Act was brought intoforce and that the benefit of the said amendment would not beavailable to the victims or dependents of the victims of theaccident that took place prior to the said date. In the said casethe Hon'ble Supreme Court also made the following observations:-" a tractor is not even a goods carriage. The 'goodscarriage' has been defined in Section 2(14) to mean "anymotor vehicle construed or adapted for use solely for thecarriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructedor adapted when used for the carriage of goods" whereas'tractor' has been defined in Section 2(44) to mean "amotor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry anyload (other than equipment used for the purpose ofpropulsion); but excludes a road-roller". The 'trailer'has been defined in Section 2(46) to mean "any vehicle,other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn orintended to be drawn by a motor vehicle".A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answerthe definition of 'goods carriage' contained in Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant tobe used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attachedto the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be usedfor agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise."22. It was also observed therein that the tractor and trailercould not be used for carriage of goods by another person for hisbusiness activities. In the said case, the deceased, afterpurchasing vegetables was transporting the same to the market forthe purpose of sale thereof when he met with an accident. Hence itwas held that the tractor and trailer were not being used foragricultural purposes when the accident took place.23. Of course, the particulars of the premium collected in thepolicy shows that a sum of Rs.1,035/- was collected as premium forcoverage of own damage and a sum of Rs.120/- was collected towardsliability to public risk. A sum of Rs.15/- was collected towardsthe risks to persons employed in connection with the operations and/or loading or unloading of Motor Vehicle. For getting coverage tounlimited extent towards the damage caused to third party propertya sum of Rs.75/- was collected as premium. From the saidparticulars of the premium collected, it is quite obvious that no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ premium was paid towards the risk involved to the owner of goods orhis representative carried in the vehicle. Therefore, it is quiteobvious that the risk involved to the persons carried either in thetractor or in the trailer, either as a passenger or as the owner ofthe goods or his representative was not covered by the insurancepolicy obtained by the first respondent in the MCOP/appellant inC.M.A.No.73/2002. When there is no coverage of insurance regardinga particular person, there shall be no question of attaching theliability to the insurer either under the no-fault liability clause(Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act) or under the fault theorywith a right to recover the amount from the insured, after makingpayment to the claimants. Therefore, this court is convinced thatthe stand taken by the insurer, namely the appellant inC.M.A.No.948/2002 / second respondent in the MCOP that there was nocoverage of insurance so far as the deceased was concerned and thathence no liability could be attached to the insurer either underSection 140 or under Section 166 r/w Section 149 has got to beupheld. The Tribunal seems to have committed an error inapportioning the liability between the owner of the vehicle and theinsurer at the ratio of 50:50. The said procedure adopted by theTribunal is defective and infirm. The award of the Tribunaldirecting apportionment of liability between the owner and theinsurer at the ratio of 50:50 cannot be sustained and the samedeserves to be reversed. For the very same reason, the appealpreferred by the owner of the vehicle, namely C.M.A.No.73/2002deserves to be dismissed as having no merit in it.24. For all the reasons stated above, this court comes to theconclusion that C.M.A.No.948/2002 shall be allowed and the award ofthe Tribunal shall be modified by mulcting the entire liability onthe owner of the vehicle, namely first respondent in the MCOP andabsolving the insurer, namely the second respondent in the MCOPfrom reimbursing the insured/owner of the vehicle. 25. In the result C.M.A.No.73/2002 is dismissed andC.M.A.No.948/2002 is allowed and the order of the Tribunal ismodified by mulcting the entire liability on the owner of thevehicle, namely first respondent in the MCOP. There shall be noorder as to costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrarasr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Court), Perambalur.2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.+1 cc to Mr.A.Muthukumar, Advocate, SR.No.28320 JUDGMENTIN C.M.A.Nos.73/2002 andC.M.A.No.948 of 2002PUR {CO}TP/28.7.2009.