The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (i) FAO-4072-2013 (O&M) Yunus Wajid Khan and others VERSUS ...Appellant ...Respondents (ii) FAO-4184-2013 (O&M) Yunus Bhuttu and others VERSUS ...Appellant ...Respondents Date of Decision: August 29, 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI Present:
Legal Reasoning
we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls under Section 2(14) as a "goods carriage” and consequently, it falls under the definition of “transport vehicle” under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, 1988.” These observations came while considering the aspect of taxation and not with respect to the competence of driver, holding ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ licence to drive the tractor attached with trailer/trolley carrying goods. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the case under consideration in Natwar’s case (supra), was relating to the condition of VINEET GULATI 2025.09.04 08:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-4072-2013 and connected case -7- three units of tractor-trailer carrying transformers and therefore, no sustenance, as such, can be drawn from the said decision. There is plethora of case law prior to Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 111, wherein, it was held that since the driver of the tractor had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor, he would not become disabled to driver it, merely because trailer was attached to the tractor. Wherein there was driving licence held to drive ‘LMV’, then carrying of the trailer, at the relevant time, was not a purpose taken to be, consider it as the case of transport vehicle. In the case in hand, the driver had driving licence to drive motorcycle, scooter as well as the tractor, copy whereof is coming on record as Ex.R1. Therefore, the driver had a requisite licence for driving ‘Light Motor Vehicle’. Suffice to make reference to Civil Appeals Nos.8395-8396 of 2017, titled ‘Sant Lal vs. Rajesh and others’, decided on 03.07.2017, wherein, the Court had considered the question, whether the holder of licence for ‘Light Motor Vehicle’ can drive the tractor, attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorising him to drive such a transport vehicle and the same was answered in reference to Mukund Dewangan’s case (supra). It was held that the driver having licence to drive ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, can drive such a transport vehicle of ‘LMV’ class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with trolley was transport vehicle of the category of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’. Hence, it was held that there was no breach of conditions of the policy. VINEET GULATI 2025.09.04 08:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-4072-2013 and connected case -8- Considering the same, the driver was having valid driving licence, at the relevant time. So far as, second part, with regard to the bricks carried in the trolley, it is pertinent to mention that the onus was upon the insurance company to establish about the tractor, being used for the commercial purposes. Suffice to consider that from the contents of the FIR as well as testimonies of the injured, who stepped into witness box as PW-7 and PW-8, it is evident that the bricks were being carried, at the relevant time. What was the purpose of carrying the bricks, as such, has not come on record. Solely, on account of some bricks carried, no presumption can be raised, at the behest of the insurance company that it was used for commercial purpose, unconnected with the agricultural pursuit. The burden was upon the insurance company to prove the breach of policy conditions, due to use of the vehicle for commercial purposes, but however, no evidence, as such, has been adduced. Simply on the score of bricks being carried, it cannot be concluded to be divested of the agricultural purposes. In the given circumstances, the finding, qua giving rights to the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the driver as well as the owners of the offending vehicle, is hereby set aside. The liability of the driver, owners and insurer of the offending vehicle, is held to be joint and several, to pay the amount of compensation. Hence, both the appeals stand allowed, in view of the aforesaid terms. August 29, 2025 Vgulati Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable VINEET GULATI 2025.09.04 08:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh (ARCHANA PURI) JUDGE Yes Yes/No
Arguments
Mr.Munfaid Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** ARCHANA PURI, J. These are two appeals filed by the appellant-driver of the offending vehicle, thereby, primarily assailing the recovery rights granted to the insurance company, vis-a-vis, the compensation awarded to the insured Wajid Khan and Bhuttu, who sustained injuries, in a motor vehicular accident. VINEET GULATI 2025.09.04 08:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh For the convenience of discussion, the parties are referred to as FAO-4072-2013 and connected case -2- making appearance before learned Tribunal. Suffice to consider that the accident had taken place on 04.08.2010. Bhuttu along with his brother Wajid Khan had proceeded from their house for Bhiwadi in dumper bearing registration No.HR-55D-8759. Bhuttu was driving the said dumper, whereas, his brother Wajid Khan was sitting on the conductor seat. At about 4.00 a.m., when they reached near Lala Hotel, on Sohna road, a tractor bearing registration No.RJ-14IR-3473 along with trolley loaded with bricks was going ahead of them. The said tractor-trolley (offending vehicle) was being driven by Yunus-respondent No.1(now appellant), in a rash and negligent manner. While, Bhuttu was trying to overtake the offending vehicle, then Yunus, without looking backside, turned the offending vehicle towards middle of the road, as a result whereof, dumper of the claimants struck with the offending vehicle and accident took place. It was claimed that accident had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-Yunus. FIR was got registered qua the accident in question. Even, claimants had sustained multiple grievous and serious injuries, qua which, they had undergone treatment in the hospital. Respondents No.1 and 2-driver and owner, in their respective replies, had though admitted about the factum of accident, but asserted about the same to have been caused, on account of negligence, on the part of Bhuttu, who had struck the dumper with the tractor of respondent No.1 and false case has been registered. Respondent No.3-insurance company, had raised objections about respondent No.1 to be not having valid and effective driving licence, at the VINEET GULATI 2025.09.04 08:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-4072-2013 and connected case -3- time of accident. Further, the factum and manner of the accident was denied. All other averments, relating to assessment of compensation to be awarded to the claimants, were also denied. Subsequently, Jai Narain and Hari Narain were impleaded as party, in pursuance of the application filed by the insurance company. However, despite service, they did not make appearance and were proceeded against ex-parte. Issues were framed and evidence was adduced. On appraisal of the evidence, learned Tribunal had held that accident had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing registration No.RJ-14IR-3474, driven by respondent No.1-Yunus (appellant in both the appeals). Thereupon, compensation was assessed by learned Tribunal and was awarded to both the injured Wajid Khan and Bhuttu. So far as, liability to pay the compensation is concerned, learned Tribunal, while relying upon Natwar Parikh and Company Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2006 ACJ 1, held that since, at the relevant time, the tractor-trolley was loaded with bricks, therefore, it was a goods carriage and hence the transport vehicle. Taking it to be so, in view of testimony of RW- 1 Ahmad Jaan, Clerk, Licencing Authority, Hathin and also considering the driving licence of Yunus Ex.R1, it was held that driver did not possess the valid driving licence. Since, there was insurance policy, which covered the date of accident, the insurance company was made liable to pay the compensation, at first instance and also, recovery rights were given to the insurance company, to recover the amount of compensation from the driver and owners i.e. respondent No.1, 4 and 5, jointly and severally. VINEET GULATI 2025.09.04 08:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-4072-2013 and connected case -4- Being aggrieved, Yunus-driver of the offending vehicle, has filed both the appeals. Upon notice, insurance company made appearance through counsel. Learned counsel for the parties heard. At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that even though, in the grounds of appeal, assertion has been made, at the behest of the appellant to assail the manner of taking place of the accident and also took the plea of contributory negligence, but however, during the course of arguments, it was not impressed upon. Primarily, the contest submitted is with regard to the recovery rights granted to the insurance company. Otherwise also, suffice to consider that there is categoric testimonies of both the injured, qua the manner of taking place of the accident. Though, driver of the offending vehicle had contested the claim petition, but neither he had taken the plea of contributory negligence, in the reply filed nor he had stepped into the witness box. Thus, considering the evidence in entirety, this aspect calls for no further consideration. It is the liability, which has been fastened upon the driver and owners of the offending vehicle, which is primarily under challenge. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant-Yunus had a valid driving licence to drive the tractor and therefore, simply on the score of trolley, filled with bricks, having attached with the same, does not raise the presumption about the same to be falling in the category of transport vehicle and presumption cannot be raised about the same to be used for commercial purposes. Even though, it is concluded about the bricks to have been carried VINEET GULATI 2025.09.04 08:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-4072-2013 and connected case -5- in the said trolley, without the purposes being disclosed, it does not dehors the purpose, for which the tractor trolley was insured. Learned Tribunal, while relying upon Natwar’s case (supra) had concluded that when the bricks were carried, it was a goods vehicle and hence, the transport vehicle. It is undisputed that vehicle in question was tractor trolley and same was insured with respondent No.2. The insurance policy is Ex.R2. Perusal of the same reveals that the insurance policy had been issued for the tractor and also, in the insurance policy, additional premium had also been taken for the Basic Trailers, so far as, third party is concerned. Therefore, the insurance policy covers not just the tractor, but also the trailer attached to the tractor. Driver-Yunus was having driving licence, copy whereof is Ex.R1, which authorised the driver to drive motorcycle, scooter as well as tractor. In Natwar’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned with the taxation under the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1957 and question arose, whether the tractor along with the trailer for transporting goods, was to constitute distinct category of goods carrier, which requires permission under Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1957 and the absence thereof, would render it liable to tax under Section 3(2). Therein, the Court held that the tractor when attached with the trailer carrying goods, would become a transport vehicle for the purpose of taxation. It was observed, as herein given:- "Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor vehicle". Although a "trailer" is separately defined in Section 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be VINEET GULATI 2025.09.04 08:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-4072-2013 and connected case -6- drawn by a motor vehicle, it is still included in the definition of the words "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28). Similarly, the word “tractor” is defined in Section 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words "motor vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words "motor vehicle" in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles, etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions under Section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it by itself is a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" under Section 2(14) and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under Section 2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test,