Court’s Decision
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company and upheld the compensation award of ₹5,02,000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, in favour of the claimants. The Court rejected the insurer’s contention that it should be exonerated from liability since the accident was caused by the trolley, which was not separately insured, holding that the tractor and trolley constituted a single vehicle and were jointly insured.
“The tractor and trolley should be seen as a single vehicle. In this situation, this court finds that there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the tribunal holding the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation.”
Facts
On 26.04.2014, a motor accident occurred involving a tractor-trolley and a motorcycle. The deceased, Ganesh Babu Mani, was riding pillion on the motorcycle when he suffered a fatal head injury due to a collision with the tractor-trolley. A claim was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the parents of the deceased seeking compensation of ₹21,62,369. The Claims Tribunal awarded ₹5,02,000 with 9% interest per annum from the date of application.
The insurance company challenged the Tribunal’s order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, asserting that since the trolley (which allegedly caused the fatal injury) was not insured, it could not be held liable for compensation.
Issues
- Whether the insurance company could be held liable for an accident allegedly caused by the trolley attached to the insured tractor.
- Whether separate insurance was necessary for the trolley when it was attached to a moving insured tractor.
Petitioner’s (Appellant/Insurance Company) Arguments
The appellant argued that:
- The deceased sustained the head injury from a collision with the trolley, not the tractor.
- The trolley was not insured under the policy (Ex.D-1), which only covered the tractor.
- Therefore, the insurer had no liability to pay compensation and should be exonerated.
- The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725, where compensation was allowed from the insurer on a pay-and-recovery basis due to the trailer being uninsured.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents (owner and driver of the tractor-trolley) argued:
- There was no specific pleading in the insurer’s written statement that the accident was caused by the trolley and not the tractor.
- No evidence was produced by the insurer to substantiate this claim.
- The trolley is not an independent or self-propelled vehicle; it moves only when attached to the tractor.
- The driver was common for both tractor and trolley.
- Since both moved as a single unit and the tractor was insured, no separate insurance was required for the trolley.
- Hence, the insurer remained liable for compensation.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed:
- The lack of pleadings and evidence by the insurer in the written statement regarding the cause of the accident being the trolley.
- The deceased was a third party, riding a motorcycle and not on the insured vehicle.
- The tribunal’s reliance on the testimonies of AW-2 (the motorcyclist) and the driver, who both stated the collision involved the trolley.
- That the Supreme Court decision in Dhondubai was distinguishable as the deceased there was riding in the trailer, not a third party.
Precedent Analysis
- Dhondubai v. Hanmantappa Bandappa Gandigude, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725:
- Distinguished as the deceased was not a third party but was riding in the trailer.
- The Court exercised Article 142 to direct pay and recovery from the insurer.
- Liyakat Ali v. Smt. Chunni Devi (Allahabad HC, 16.07.2010, Order No. 600 of 2009):
- Held that a trailer/trolley attached to a tractor is part of the tractor and does not need separate insurance.
- Saudan Singh v. Nanhi Devi & Ors (Allahabad HC, FAO No. 2952 of 2017, decided 02.02.2021):
- Reaffirmed that no separate insurance was needed for a trolley attached to an insured tractor.
These precedents were applied to reinforce that the tractor-trolley should be treated as a single insured unit.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that:
- The appellant failed to plead or prove that the injury was caused solely by the trolley or that it was not part of the insured vehicle.
- The tractor and trolley were attached and moving together; the trolley could not move independently.
- Therefore, the trolley was not a separate vehicle in law and should be treated as part of the tractor.
- Since the tractor was insured, and the vehicle combination was responsible for the accident, the insurer could not escape liability.
Conclusion
The appeal filed by the insurer was dismissed, and the High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s award of compensation. The Court found no merit in the insurer’s claim for exoneration and reiterated that attached tractor-trolley combinations are to be treated as a single vehicle for insurance liability purposes.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that:
- Insurance companies cannot escape liability for accidents involving trailers or trolleys merely because such attachments were not independently insured, provided they were part of a moving insured tractor unit.
- Clear and specific pleadings are necessary if an insurer seeks to avoid liability based on the alleged cause being an uninsured part of the vehicle.
- Victims who are third parties to the insured vehicle combination are entitled to claim compensation under the insurance policy of the tractor.
