# United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Smt. Suman and others

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 296
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-09-21
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 611 of 2013
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Anil Kumar Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/united-india-insurance-company-ltd-v-smt-suman-and-others-42487
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle Act 1988- Section 147-
Tractor trolly used for carrying wooden
log-deceased standing by side of tractordue to fall of an wooden log-sustained
injury-caused
death-whether
liability
fixed upon insurance company proper?-
held-'yes'-in absence of any material the
wooden log used for commercial purpose
or carring agricultural product-tractor
possessing all valid papers with valid
1 All] United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suman and others
297
driving
license-Tribunal
rightly
fixed
liability of insurance Company-Appeal
dismissed.

Held: Para-37

It is clear from the provisions of the Act
and Rules framed under the Motor
Vehicles
Act
that
once
the
trolley
attached with the tractor has become
part of the tractor, it does not require a
separate insurance under Section 146 of
the Act but only a separate registration
in
case
where
the
tractor/trolley
combination
is
being
used
for
commercial purpose. The accident in the
instant case is said to have taken place
when one of the wooden log loaded on
the
trolley
fell
upon
Jagdish,
who
succumbed to the injuries caused by fall
of the said log. In fact Jagdish was
standing by the side of the trolley and
neither was a passing on it nor the
accident took place on a public road. The
owner of the tractor had a valid papers
i.e.
registration,
permit
and
fitness
certificate etc. and its driver also was
possessing valid and effective driving
licence, therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellant
Insurance Company has rightly been
found
liable
to
pay
amount
of
compensation as per the award.

Case Law discussed:
2007(3)T.A.C. 20 (S.C.); 1997(1) TAC-100;
AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4338; (2005)7SCC364; (2007)SCC 56; (2003) 2 SCC-223;
2008(4)ALJ(NOC)802(ALL);
2004(8)SCC697;(2005) ACC-423; 2005 ACJ-721;(CIVIL)
No. 16 of 2004; (2003)1 SCC-223

## Text

296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
tax may be levied on the assessed annual
value of the premises. The source of
revenue is, thus, clearly indicated. A
further safeguard has been provided by
laying down that the recommendations of
the Jal Sansthan has to be considered by
the government before notifying the levy
of taxes. The reasonableness of tax has
also been ensured by fixing the maximum
limits. Earlier, we are informed, the
maximum rate was 14 per cent which has
been reduced to 12.5 per cent of the
annual letting value of the building.

37. Before closing the judgment we
may reproduce the following passage
from the judgment of the Apex Court in
Delhi
Water
Supply
&
sewerage
Disposal Undertaking and another Vs.
State of Haryana and others, (1996) 2
SCC 572--"Water is a gift of nature.
Human hand cannot be permitted to
convert this bounty into a curse, an
oppression. The primary use to which the
water is put being drinking, it would be
mocking the nature to force the people
who live on the bank of a river to remain
thirsty."

38. The management for potable
water needs meticulous handling and
requires
an
excellent
mechanism
particularly when it is becoming scarce
day by day ( See Lucknow Grih Swami
Parishad) (supra).

39. Viewed as above, we do not find
any merit in the second point of the
petitioner. The said point is decided by
holding that the impugned notification is
valid.

40. Consequently, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed in part. The
demand
notice
dated
21.9.2010,
Annexure-1 and the order dated 9.2.2011
as contained in annexure-5 of the writ
petition
are
hereby
quashed.
The
respondent authorities are required to
revise the water tax bill in the light of the
observations made above after having a
joint inspection if they so desire and with
the association of the officials of the
petitioner, issue a fresh demand bill
preferably within a period of one month.
We
have
been
informed
that
the
petitioners have paid the amount under
the impugned bill; if that is so, the excess
amount shall be refunded along with
interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum
from the date of deposit till the date of
actual payment.

41. No order as to costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 611 of 2013

United India Insurance Company Ltd

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Suman and others ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Mehrotra

Motor Vehicle Act 1988- Section 147-
Tractor trolly used for carrying wooden
log-deceased standing by side of tractordue to fall of an wooden log-sustained
injury-caused
death-whether
liability
fixed upon insurance company proper?-
held-'yes'-in absence of any material the
wooden log used for commercial purpose
or carring agricultural product-tractor
possessing all valid papers with valid
1 All] United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suman and others
297
driving
license-Tribunal
rightly
fixed
liability of insurance Company-Appeal
dismissed.

Held: Para-37

It is clear from the provisions of the Act
and Rules framed under the Motor
Vehicles
Act
that
once
the
trolley
attached with the tractor has become
part of the tractor, it does not require a
separate insurance under Section 146 of
the Act but only a separate registration
in
case
where
the
tractor/trolley
combination
is
being
used
for
commercial purpose. The accident in the
instant case is said to have taken place
when one of the wooden log loaded on
the
trolley
fell
upon
Jagdish,
who
succumbed to the injuries caused by fall
of the said log. In fact Jagdish was
standing by the side of the trolley and
neither was a passing on it nor the
accident took place on a public road. The
owner of the tractor had a valid papers
i.e.
registration,
permit
and
fitness
certificate etc. and its driver also was
possessing valid and effective driving
licence, therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellant
Insurance Company has rightly been
found
liable
to
pay
amount
of
compensation as per the award.

Case Law discussed:
2007(3)T.A.C. 20 (S.C.); 1997(1) TAC-100;
AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4338; (2005)7SCC364; (2007)SCC 56; (2003) 2 SCC-223;
2008(4)ALJ(NOC)802(ALL);
2004(8)SCC697;(2005) ACC-423; 2005 ACJ-721;(CIVIL)
No. 16 of 2004; (2003)1 SCC-223

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the
impugned award.

2. This First Appeal From Order has
been filed against the judgment and award
dated 5.12.2012 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/ Additional
District Judge, Court No.2, Kanpur Dehat
in M.A.C.P. No. 411 of 2011, Smt.
Suman
and
another
versus
Laxmi
Chandra
and
another,
whereby
compensation of Rs. 4,21,000/- together
with interest at the rate 6% per annum
was awarded to the claimant-respondents.

3. The appellant has challenged the
impugned award on the ground that the
driver of tractor no. UP-78, BY-8577 was
driving it in a rash and negligent manner,
is erroneous and that Jagdish (since
deceased) had not suffered any injuries
from the said tractor, hence the claim
petition before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal was not maintainable
against the appellant.

4. It is argued in the alternative that
admittedly wooden logs were loaded in
the trailer attached with the tractor for
transportation, hence the tractor was being
used for commercial purpose in breach of
the terms and conditions of insurance
policy and for this reason too there is no
liability
of
the
appellant-Insurance
Company
for
making
payment
of
compensation
to
the
claimantrespondents. The findings of the Tribunal
being in teeth of the terms and conditions
of Insurance policy are liable to be set
aside.

5. According to the learned counsel
for the appellant, trailer attached with the
tractor was not insured as no premium for
it has been paid. He argues that without
appreciating this material aspect the
Tribunal has illegally held that the trailer
does not require insurance, which finding,
being against the provisions of Section
146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is
liable to be quashed.
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

6. Learned counsel for the appellant
has relied upon a judgment rendered by
the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. versus Brij Mohan and
others, 2007(3) T.A.C.20 (S.C.) in
support of his contention that trailer and
trolley ought to be separately insured, if
used for commercial purpose.

7. Before considering the relevant
provisions of the Act vis-a-vis the facts of
the case, the law enunciated by the Apex
Court in this regard may be looked into as
it appears that law in respect of insurance
of trolley or tractor and its registration is
not finally settled and there are different
views expressed by the Apex Court in this
regard. Some High Courts and the Apex
Court in some of the judgments have held
that it is mandatory for the tractor and
trolley in a tractor/trailer combination to
be registered and insured separately as
this combination can be brought within
the definition of "Goods Carriage".

8. The questions considered by the
various High Courts and the Apex Court
in this regard are:-

(a) whether trailer is a motor vehicle

(b) whether non-insurance of trailer
would take away the liability of the
Insurance Company and in which cases ?.

9. Having heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra,
learned counsel for the appellant at length
we
find
that
''semi-trailer''
''trailer''
''tractor'' "transport vehicle" and " goods
carriage" are defined in Sections 2(14),
2(39), 2(44), 2(46) and 2 (47) of the Act,
respectively thus:-

"2(14) " Goods 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;

2(39) " semi-trailer" means a vehicle
not mechanically propelled (other than a
trailer), which is intended to be connected
to a motor vehicle and which is so
constructed that a portion of it is super
imposed on, and a part of whose weight is
borne by, that motor vehicle;

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;

2(46) " trailer" means any vehicle,
other than a semi-trailer and a side-car,
drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor
vehicle."

2(47) " transport vehicle" means a
public service vehicle, a goods carriage,
an educational institution bus or a private
service vehicle;

10. The Karnataka High Court in
1997(1) TAC-100, Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. versus N. Chandrashekaran
and others has held that in the event
Insurance policy prohibits use of tractor
for drawing an uninsured trailer attached
to it, then no right accrues to the insurer to
avoid its liability as such a combination
was a "motor vehicle" within the meaning
of word defined in the Act.

11. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus
Chinnamma and others, AIR 2004,
Supreme Court-4338 the Court held that
1 All] United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suman and others
299
a tractor fitted with a trailer may or may
not be used as goods carriage. This aspect
of the matter has been discussed in said
paragraphs thus:

" 16. Furthermore, a tractor is not
even a goods carriage. The "goods
carriage" has been defined in Section
2(14) to mean "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"
whereas "tractor" has been defined in
Section 2(44) to mean "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". The "trailer" has been
defined in Section 2(46) to mean "any
vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a
side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn
by a motor vehicle".

17. 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 he
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 he used for
carnage 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. 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 the
"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 (supra) 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"

12. In Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd.
versus State of Karnataka and others,
(2005) 7 SCC-364, the Apex Court while
dealing with the provisions of Karnataka
Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 held
that categorization of vehicles for taxation
under the aforesaid Act depends upon use
of motor vehicles on a given occasion,
irrespective of whether adapted for that
purpose or not. On facts of that case, the
Court held that categorization of tractortrailer as the "goods carriage" had rightly
been made by the taxation authority based
on its use on the given occasion.

13. In paragraph 19 of the judgment
the Court made it clear that the provisions
of the Katnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation
Act, 1957 is to be construed on its own
force and not with reference to the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
Therefore,
the
case
is
distinguishable as it itself provides that
the findings recorded are not to be read
with reference to the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act.

14. The Apex Court in the case of
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Brij
Mohan and others, (2007) SCC-56
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant has made a distinction between
the "goods carriage" intended and being
used for agricultural purpose and one used
for commercial purpose noticing the
judgment in Asha Rani (2003) 2 SCC223 wherein it was held that-

" as the provisions of Section 147 of
the Act do not enjoin any statutory
liability on the owner of a vehicle to get
his vehicle insured for any passenger
travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers
would not be liable therefor. Furthermore,
by reason of the 1994 amendment to the
Act the liability of the owner of the
vehicle to insure it compulsorily was
enlarged only to cover the owner of the
goods or his authorized representative
carried in the vehicle. The intention of
Parliament was not that the words "any
person" occurring in Section 147 cover all
persons who were travelling in a goods
carriage in any capacity whatsoever.

Finally, the tractor was insured only
for
the
purpose
of
carrying
out
agricultural works. In cross-examination
the Insurance Company had merely
accepted the suggestion that cutting earth
and levelling the field with earth would be
"agricultural work" but respondent no.1
himself had categorically stated in his
claim petition before the Tribunal that the
earth had been dug up and was being
carried in the trolley to the brick kiln.
Evidently, the earth was meant to be used
only for the purpose of manufacturing
bricks. Digging of earth for the purpose of
manufacture of bricks cannot amount to
carrying out of "agricultural work."

15. The Apex Court considering the
effect of deviation for the purpose for
which the vehicle was insured held that
claim petitioner a labourer injured while
travelling in trolley attached to tractor
carrying earth to brick kiln but neither
was the trolley insured in addition to the
tractor nor was the tractor being used for
"agricultural work" the only purpose for
which the tractor was insured when the
appellant received the injuries was
commercial.

16. The Apex Court in that case, in
exercise of its extra-ordinary powers
under Article 141 of the Constitution of
India directed that the award may be
satisfied by the appellant Insurance
Company but it would be entitled to
realize the same from the owner of the
tractor-trolley where-for it would not be
necessary
to
initiate
any
separate
proceedings for recovery of the amount as
provided for in the Act.

17.

The
Division
Bench
of
Allahabad High Court in re: Markandey
Singh versus Smt. Chanmuni Devi and
another, 2008 (4) ALJ (NOC)802 (ALL)
decided
liability
of
the
Insurance
Company in a motor accident claim
holding that a motor vehicle can be used
for social, domestic and pleasure purpose
and insured's own business. However,
when the driver used it as public vehicle,
there was violation of the terms of the
agreement for Insurance Company as
such only owner and driver can be
fastened joint and several liability to
indemnify the injured.

18. From above discussion it
appears that law enunciated by the Apex
Court generally is that a tractor-trailer
combination would constitute a motor
vehicle and even a "Goods Carriage"
under Section 2(47) if it is used as a
vehicle for use in commercial purpose of
1 All] United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suman and others
301
transporting goods and would fall under
Section 2(14) as a "Goods Carriage" for
the reason that both, chassis and trailer
attached would fall within the meaning of
expression Motor Vehicle, hence in such
a case, trailer attached to the tractor is to
be separately registered and insured, but if
at the relevant time it is not being used for
any commercial purpose the trailer does
not
require
separate
insurance
and
registration.

19. In this regard sections 146 and
147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
which provide for registration of the
tractor and the tractor separately may also
be looked into. These sections provide
only for separate registration of trolley
attached
with
tractor
if
used
for
commercial purpose but not for separate
insurance which led the Courts to
interpret these two provisions having
divergent views.

20. Insurance of Motor Vehicles
against third party risk falls under Chapter
XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which
contains Sections 145 to Section 164. In
this regard, sections 145, 146 and 147 of
the Act are ones with which we are
primarily concerned in this case for the
purpose of consideration of aforesaid two
questions. Section 147 is definition
clause, which states the requirement of
policies and limits of liability whereas
section 146 of the Act provides necessity
for insurance against third party risk.

21. Section 146 of the Act broadly
mandates that a motor vehicle shall not be
used except as a passenger vehicle by any
person, in a public place unless the
vehicle is covered by third party risk
policy of insurance as required in the said
chapter. The section is prohibitary in
nature making insurance a mandatory pre
requisite for the owner to have his vehicle
insured before he can exercise his right to
be
indemnified
by
the
Insurance
Company in respect of an accident
causing death or injury to the third party
whereas Section 147 imposes certain
restrictions in respect of use of a
particular type of vehicle, which may
provide for class of persons covered by it
vis-a-vis their liability towards third party
in the event of death or injury caused by a
motor vehicle. Therefore, the scope of
these sections is to be given a liberal
interpretation in order to provide a
meaningful and practical applicability to
claimant (s) in order to fulfill the object of
the legislation.

22. That brings us to the question as
to whether in the instant case the
Insurance Company can be made liable to
pay the compensation. Admittedly, the
vehicle in question insured with the
Insurance Company was tractor alone.
The sitting capacity of the vehicle was
only one. It was meant to be used only for
agricultural purpose and not for carrying
of passengers on public road. Therefore,
the Rule position may also be seen as
applicable to State of Uttar Pradesh.

23. Rules 170,171, 173 & 175 of
The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998, provide only for registration of
vehicle. Rule 170 prohibits attachment of
trailer to motor vehicles which shall be
drawn in a public place if the laden
weight of the trolley exceeds the limits
provided therein and that the State
Transport Authority may, by general or
special resolution containing reasons
therefor and subject to such conditions, as
may be specified therein, prohibit or
restrict the attachment of trailers or any
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
particular type of trailers generally onany
specified route or area, to any motor
vehicle or class of motor vehicles.

24. Rule 171 is in respect to Trailers
fitted with tractors and provides that no
tractor shall draw on a public road, a
trailer exceeding half a ton in weight
unladen and fitted with solid steel wheels
less than 60 centimetres in diameter
whereas Rule 173 provides for attendants
on trailers.

25. Rule 175 pertains to Goods
carriage, drawing of trailer or semi-trailer
which provides that the holder of a goods
carriage permit may use the vehicle for
the drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer
not owned by him, subject, to the
condition that such goods carriage and the
trailer
or
semi-trailer
fulfills
the
requirements of these rules.

26. A trailer by itself is not a motor
vehicle i.e. goods vehicle nor a passenger
vehicle. The trailer if attached to a tractor
is also not meant to carry any passenger
or any load except in accordance with law
as stated above. When a trailer is attached
to
the
tractor,
the
tractor-trailer
combination may or may not be used as
goods carriage. 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. versus V. Chinnamma,
2004(8) SCC-697 stating that a tractor is
meant for agricultural purpose and fitted
with a trailer may or may not answer the
definition of goods carriage contained in
the Motor Vehicles Act. The trailer
attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is
required to be used for agricultural
purposes.

27. The Apex Court dealing with the
question as to where the vehicle was
admittedly insured for carrying some type
of passengers, who could be carried in
the vehicle or not laid down the principle
in (i) National Insurance Company
versus Bommithi Subbhayamma III
(2005) ACC-423,2005, ACJ-721, (ii)
National Insurance Company Ltd.
Versus Baljit Kaur and others Appeal
(Civil) No. 16 of 2004 decided on
6.1.2005,
(iii)
National
Insurance
Company Ltd. versus Ajit Kumar and
others, (iv) New India Assurance
Company Ltd. versus Asha Rani and
others, ( 2003) 1 SCC-223.

28. Section 61 of the Act under
Chapter IV provides application of the
Chapter
to
trailers
which
contains
Sections 39 to 53 and their registration
etc. whereas Section 146 of the Act
provides for insurance of the motor
vehicle. Perusal of Section 61 shows that
trolley/trailer must have a separate
registration but Section 146 of the Act
does not provide for separate insurance of
tractor and trolley. A semi-trailer is
different from tractor-trolly as it is a part
of the motor vehicle or the tractor itself
whereas a trolley/trailer may become a
part of the tractor if attached to it, which
is at the option of the user of the tractor.
The legislature, therefore, in its wisdom
has not provided for separate insurance of
tractor-trolley though it provides for a
separate registration of the trolley if used
for commercial purpose. This appears for
the reason that a trolley without any
motor/engine fitted for its propulsion
would not be a motor vehicle itself unless
attached to a tractor or external source of
such kind. The registration of tractortrolley depends solely upon the intention
and
actual
use
of
tractor-trolley
1 All] United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Suman and others
303
combination and even in that case neither
the Act nor the Rules provide for separate
insurance merely because the cover policy
provides a column in this regard for
insurance of trailer which may be
registered for commercial purpose would
not make it mandatory upon the tractor
owner to pay insurance premium for
trolley or trailer being used for agriculture
or domestic purpose or for his own use
under the provisions of the Act as neither
the Act nor Rules provide for insurance
for use of trailer for agriculture or
personal purpose.

29. If hypothesis of the Insurance
Company that a trailer has to be
separately insured in every circumstance
is
accepted
then
every
agricultural
equipment attached with the tractor to
trail it including a trailer or trolley would
require a separate insurance for which
there is no provision made in the Act by
the legislature.

30. India is an agricultural country
whose farmers are poor. The legislature in
its wisdom did not think it prudent to
cover
the
agricultural
equipments
including trolley or even a trailer being
used for agricultural purposes under the
insurance policy unless proved otherwise
that it is or was being used for
commercial purpose for the reason that
use
of
Trolley/trailer
&
tractor
combination
by
farmers
to
carry
grains/fertilizer etc. for domestic and
agricultural
purposes
cannot
be
considered as it commercial purpose and
saddled with liability of insurance as a
commercial vehicle such as "goods
carriage". Further, after imposition of
ceiling the farmer's land had been reduced
and no farmer can afford a tractor if he
cultivates his agricultural land only. He
can render his services along with tractor
to other farmers to help in their
cultivation
may
be
for
some
consideration.

31. As regards use of trolley/trailer
for domestic purpose is concerned, it all
depends upon the intention of the user and
its
actual
use.
Such
tractor-trolley
attachment is put to particularly when the
tractor is registered as motor vehicle and
if a trailer attached with the tractor carries
agricultural produce for sale in 'Mandi' or
for any other commercial purpose without
trolley being registered for commercial
purpose and insured separately for this
purpose, it would be in violation of the
terms and conditions of the insurance
policy.

32. In case of a dispute about the use
of the trolley, for domestic purpose or for
commercial purpose the onus would be
upon the person/party which disputes that
tractor-trolley combination was being
used for commercial purpose at the
relevant time of accident and not domestic
or for agricultural purpose. In our
considered opinion, the trolley is liable to
be insured if it is used for commercial
purposes and not for agricultural or
domestic purpose, therefore, the insurance
of trolley/trailer attached to a tractor
depends upon the intention and its actual
use, therefore, it will not take away the
liability of the Insurance Company until
and unless it is proved that the trolley was
being used for commercial purposes. If
the tractor is not insured for commercial
purposes, the trolley attached to it or any
other vehicle acquires the status of the
vehicle to which it is attached i.e. for
domestic or agricultural purposes etc.
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

33. In the instant case, the appellant
had not discharged its burden of proof
that trolley/tractor attached with trailer
was-

(i) on public road at the time of
accident; and

(ii) it was being used for commercial
purpose.

34. There is no evidence on record
from which it could be established by the
appellant-United
India
Insurance
Company Ltd. that the tractor-trolley was
in fact being used on public road for
commercial purposes at the relevant time.
The specific case of the appellant is that
trolley attached with the tractor in
question is said to have been loaded with
logs in the jungle and when the tractor
was started, one of the logs fell upon
Jagdish, who was standing near the
stationary tractor/trolley. He died due to
the injury caused by the fall of wooden
log from the tractor-trolley.

35. The Tribunal has relied upon the
evidence of P.W.2 in its judgment from
which it appears that tractor-trolley was
not being used for commercial purpose
and no contra evidence has been adduced
by the appellant showing that in the
instant case the tractor was being used for
commercial purposes.

36. If the tractor attached with the
trolley was to be used for transportation
of wooden logs from the jungle, which is
an agriculture produce for sale or
commercial purpose, then the appellant
ought to have established to whom the
wooden logs were being delivered and for
what purpose, otherwise in absence of any
such evidence for rejecting the claim of
the appellant it has to be held that tractor
being a motor vehicle registered and
insured for agricultural purpose was being
used for transportation of agricultural
goods i.e. the logs on trolley attached with
it for domestic use.

37. It is clear from the provisions of
the Act and Rules framed under the Motor
Vehicles Act that once the trolley attached
with the tractor has become part of the
tractor, it does not require a separate
insurance under Section 146 of the Act
but only a separate registration in case
where the tractor/trolley combination is
being used for commercial purpose. The
accident in the instant case is said to have
taken place when one of the wooden log
loaded on the trolley fell upon Jagdish,
who succumbed to the injuries caused by
fall of the said log. In fact Jagdish was
standing by the side of the trolley and
neither was a passing on it nor the
accident took place on a public road. The
owner of the tractor had a valid papers i.e.
registration, permit and fitness certificate
etc. and its driver also was possessing
valid and effective driving licence,
therefore, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the appellant Insurance
Company has rightly been found liable to
pay amount of compensation as per the
award.

38.

The
appellant
Insurance
Company has failed to establish that
tractor-trolley was being used as a
commercial
vehicle
for
commercial
purpose at the time of accident and the
accident had occurred on a public road.

39. As stated above, the Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
versus V. Chinnamma & others (surpa)
has left open the question as to whether
1 All] Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli Vs. Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others
305
the tractor becomes a good vehicle when
a trailer has been attached to it.

40. The law cited by the counsel for
the appellant is not applicable to the facts
of this case. In our considered opinion,
the Tribunal has not committed any error
in law or on facts in holding that appellant
is liable to pay the amount to the
claimants under the award.

41. For all the reasons stated above,
the appeal is dismissed.

42. Statutory amount deposited by
the appellant in this Court be remitted to
the Tribunal concerned within two weeks
from
today
for
adjustment
and
disbursement
to
the
claimants
in
accordance with the award.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.

Misc. Single No. 652 of 1998

Dedaur Inter College Dedaur Raebareli

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Collector (Admn.) Raebareli & others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.S. Nigam

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C
Sri R.N. Gupta

(A) Uttar Pradesh Bhudan Ygya Act, 1952Section 14- Whether Private Inter College
can be treated "Landless Agricultural
Labours" for grant of Patta? Held-"No"
such action treating landless person-viod
ab 'initio'.

Held: Para-32

In view of the above said fact and taking
into consideration the provisions in
respect to grant of patta/ lease under
Section 14 of the Act , the petitioner
does not falls within the ambit and scope
of the definition of 'landless person' to
whom patta/ lease can be granted under
the said section, initial grant of patta/
lease in favour of the petitioner by
Bhoodan Yagya Samiti treating it as
'landless person' is an act which is void
ab initio because the petitioner is not
eligible for the same under Section 14 of
the Act in view of the movement started
by Acharya Vinoba Bahave known as
"Bhoodan Yagya Movement" in which
the Zamindars etc. donated their lands to
Acharyaji and thereafter the said lands
came with Bhoodan Yagaya Simiti, and
the same was to be granted as per the
mandate provided by the legislature
under Section 14 of the Act, so keeping
in view the said facts the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner
and
taking
into
aid
the
provisions of Section 195 read with
Section 198 (i-a) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, the said argument has got no force ,
hence rejected.

(B)Constitution
Of
India:Art.
226-
Principle of Natural Justice-where action
of granting lease itself 'ab initio viod'-
observance
of
Principle
of
Natural
Justice-held-meaning-less.

Held: Para-37

The arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner that prior to
passing of the impugned order, no
opportunity of hearing has been given to
the petitioner, so the said action on the
part of respondents is in violation of
principles of natural justice , has got no
force in view of the facts stated herein
above specially on two conditions; (a)