M.P Chinnappa, J.:— On 4-12-1995 at about 2-30 PM, while Chand Pasha and Moinuddin were returning to their village Halbarga by walk from village Ashtoor, on Bidar to Ashtoor road a tractor - bearing No. KA-39.M-3 loaded with laterate stones came from Bidar towards Astoor road being driven by one Nagshetty and proceeding in a down gradient. On seeing the tractor, Chand Pasha raised his hand to stop it as there was a ditch but the driver could not control the vehicle and by coming in a rash and negligent manner dashed against them and the tractor turtled due to which the deceased Chand Pasha died on the spot itself.
2. Therefore, the claimants who are L.H of the deceased lodged a claim petition in MVC. 12/96 on the file of the Addl. MACT. (Prl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Dvn.) Bidar, claiming in all a compensation of Rs. 4.50,000/-. But however, the insurance company has taken a plea that the deceased was sitting on the stones loaded in the lorry and he died in the accident. The Tribunal after having come to the conclusion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in a sum of Rs. 2,07,000/- with interest at 12% per annum and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. Being aggrieved by that Judgment dt. 12.8.1998 the insurance company preferred this appeal.
3. Heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties.
4. The main contentions of the appellant insurance company are:
(a) the driver of the tractor had no valid licence to drive the tractor which was used as a goods vehicle as it was attached with a trailer;
(b) that the trailer was not insured with the insurance company. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
5. However, the respondents fully supported the impugned order. In view of this argument, the first question that requires consideration is as to whether the driver had a valid licence to drive the goods vehicle.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if the tractor is attached with a trailer, it becomes a goods vehicle. To drive a goods vehicle, there should be a valid licence and in that connection, he has drawn my attention to S. 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act which deals with currency of licences to drive motor vehicles. According to sub-sec. (2) of S. 14 a driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall, (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be affective for a period of three years; and (b) in the case of any other licence- (i) if the person obtaining the licence, either originally or on renewal thereof, has not attained the age of 40 years on the date of issue or, as the case may be, renewal thereof,(A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the date of such issue or renewal; or (B) until the date on which such person attains the age of forty years, whichever is earlier.
7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant in this case he had obtained the licence to drive the tractor and that was valid upto 2014. According to S. 14 of the Act as indicated above, if the licence is granted to drive a transport vehicle, the same is valid only for a period of 3 years, That itself discloses that it is not a valid licence to drive a tractor attached with a trailer which is a goods vehicle. Therefore, he submitted that the driver had no valid licence.
8. The fact remains that the 1st respondent was holding a driving licence to drive the. tractor. Further, he has drawn my attention to S. 3 of the Act. S. 3 deals with the necessity for driving licence which reads:
“(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a motor-cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of S. 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.”
9. Ex. P-4 is the certificate of registration and certificate of fitness in respect of the tractor which was a new vehicle. The respondent Maruti also oroduced his driving licence issued on 8.12.94 and according to the licence, his date of birth is 28.3.66 and the same is valid upto 7.12.2014 This also clearly discloses that he was authorised to drive only tractor. If the trailer is used, it is only for the purpose of transportation of goods. The same can be used only as a transport vehicle if it is attached with a trailer. It is also clearly mentioned that the licence to drive a M.V other than a transport vehicle is valid. It is not issued to drive a transport vehicle. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that the driver of the tractor had no valid driving licence’ as on that date.
10. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trailer was not insured with the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation on that ground also.
11. From the perusal of Ex. R-l the insurance policy it is seen that a sum of Rs. 120/- was taken towards liability of public risk and Rs. 12/- was paid towards trailer. It is not clear as to whether a sum of Rs. 12/- was paid being the premium for covering the trailer. Be that as it may, it is also not in dispute that the trailer has not dashed against the individual. On the other hand, the tractor itself has dashed which was covered under the insurance policy but as the driver did not possess a valid licence as on that day to drive a transport vehicle, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation deserves to be rejected.
12. This Court has held in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. N. CHANDRASHEKARAN, (ILR 1996 KAR 2157) that if the tractor draws a trailer and the accident is caused by such tractor-trailer then the vehicle causing the accident would not be a traccor but a goods vehicle. It is only if both tractor and trailer are insured would be liable to indemnify the owner against claims arising out of the use of tractor and trailer. This view would be in conformity with the other statutory provisions which require even a trailer to be insured.
13. In this case as stated above, there is nothing to indicate that the trailer was insured with the appellant. Even on that ground also the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation.
14. In the result therefore, I proceed to pass the following order:
15. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order in so far as it relates to fastening the liability on the insurance company and directing it to pay the same is set aside. The owner of the tractor and trailer/8th respondent herein shall pay the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal.
16. The amount deposited in this Court shall be refunded to the insurance company the appellant herein. No order as to costs, in this appeal.