Judgment related to TractorTrolley under MV Act:

Judgment related to TractorTrolley under MV Act:

 

1Tractortrailer.Tractor trolley worker sustained injuries IC

seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that policy does not cover risk of owner and labourers whether sustainable Held ; No. Section 2(44) and 2(46) and 2(28) indicates that when trailer

is attached to tractor (propelled), it becomes motor vehicle and therefore, IC is liable.

2016 ACJ 2367 (Guj), 2012 ACJ 1408 (Kar), 2012

ACJ 2737 (All) SC judgments followed, 2022 ACJ

1795 (Bom).

M.V. Act Section 61, 146, 147 Tractor trolley It is no doubt true that trolley is required separate registration for commercial use/purpose u/s 61 but as per Section 146, it does not provide for separate insurance of trolley. Once trolley is attached to the tractor, it becomes one vehicle. IC of tractor is held liable to pay

compensation. 2014 ACJ 1727 (All) – UII v/s Suman (Rakesh Tiwari and Anil Kumar Sharma JJ),

2015 ACJ 1078 (Chh), 2015 ACJ 1037(Del).

But in a case reported in 2013 ACJ 1496, is has been held that Tractor and Trolley are two separate vehicles, and if, Trolley attached with tractor is not insured and deceased was travelling in the Trolley attached with tractor, Insurance Company is not liable. Also see 2014 ACJ 1583

(P&H) – NII Com v/s Sohan lal.

2. TractortrolleyTP risk Claimant was traveling in Jeep IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground that Trolley was not insured whether sustainable. Held ; no. claimant was TP for the tractor and even if Trolley was not insured, IC is liable as addition of

trolley to tractor will not make any difference to the claimant as he is TP for tractor 2012 ACJ 177.

3. Sitting on mudguard of tractor. Tractor was meant for agricultural purpose admittedly it was not used for agricultural purpose when accident occurred whether IC is liable? Held – No. Because as per Rule 28 of the Rules of the Road Regulations 1989, driver is not supposed to allow ant person in the vehicle where sitting capacity is only one. 2018 ACJ 1884 (Kar)

2012 ACJ 1738, 2017 ACJ 741, 2018 ACJ 2077

(P&H), 2018 ACJ 2778 (Mad), ACJ 2021 2170 (Mad) – in this case the evidence of eye witness and contents of the FIR have been taken into consideration to come to the conclusion that deceased was sitting on the mudguard with the driver and there was no trolley/trailer was attached to the said tractor.

But order of pay and recover can be passed – 2015 ACJ 1677 (Mad).

4. Tractortrolley When trolley is attached with the tractor is one vehicle – and same is to be treated as Good Vehicle – 2018 ACJ 2109 (Mad) 2012 ACJ 2022 and 2117 (CHH)

5. Tractor trailer – Tractor trolley Goods vehicle Additional premium of 7 passengers paid under the workmen compensation act – employee of hirer sustained injuries – IC disputed its liability – Policy covers vehicle as well as the employees engaged for its operation – Under this situation, IC held liable to pay amount of compensation. 2013 ACJ 994.

6. Labourer travelling on Tractor succumbed to injuries sustained by him IC disputed its liability on the ground that deceased was a gratuitous passenger as no trolley was attached with the tractor whether sustainable? Held ; No.

2013 ACJ 2034 (ALL) – SC judgment reported in

1987 ACJ 411, Skandia Ins. v/s Kokilaben Chandravadan relied upon.

7.Tractor trailer – IC disputed it's liability on the ground that there was sitting capacity of only one person and, therefore, claim could not have travelled in the said tractor trailer as labourer whether sustainable? Held ; No.

2013 ACJ 2331 (Kar) Death of coolie travelling on the mudguard 2013 ACJ 2353 (Mad) – But see SC Judgment wherein it is held that when IC has charged additional premium to cover risk of 3

persons, IC is liable to make good 2017 ACJ 1725 (SC) – Mata Ram vs. NI Com

8. Tractor trailer Agricultural purpose commercial purpose Difference between.

2014 ACJ 1254 (SC)Fahim Ahmed v/s UII Com.,

2014 ACJ 2843 (Mad), 2015 ACJ 2083 (AP)

9. Tractor trolley – Agricultural purpose when accident occurred sand was loaded on it – whether IC can avoid its liability on the count that same was not used for agricultural purpose? Held No. Unless same is proved by leading cogent evidence, it not be held so.

2014 ACJ 1966 (All)

Contrary view – 2018 ACJ 2018 ACJ 1188 (P&H)

10. Tractor trolleyTP risk Claimant was traveling in Jeep IC sought to avoid its liability on the ground that Trolley was not insured whether sustainable. Held ; no. claimant was TP for the tractor and even if Trolley was not insured, IC is liable as addition of trolley to tractor will not make any difference to the claimant as he is TP for tractor.

2012 ACJ 177.

11. Trolley attached with tractor in the trolley agricultural products were transported when accident occurred held that such tractor and trolley should be treated as agricultural vehicle      2022 ACJ 1102(All)