JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.—This judgment shall dispose of two appeals being FAO No. 99 of 1998 and FAO No. 100 of 1998 as they arise out of the same accident and the same award. 2. The facts necessary for decision of the case are that on October 11, 1994 at about 12.30 noon Krishan Chand was driving a motorcycle. His brother-in-law Nasib Singh was sitting on the pillion. This motorcycle met with an accident with tractor No.PCH-5539. Both Kishan Chand and Nasib Singh filed claim petitions on the ground that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The Tribunal allowed the claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs. 44,000/- in favour of Krishan Chand and Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Nasib Singh. The tractor was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and it has been made liable to pay the compensation. 3. These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company. The main contention raised on behalf of the Insurance Company is that the tractor at the relevant time was pulling a trailer. Therefore, according to the Insurance Company, the vehicle was a goods vehicle for all intents and purposes. 4. Mr. Lalit Sharma learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that since the driver of the vehicle did not have a driving licence bearing an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. 5. 4. Mr. Lalit Sharma learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has argued that since the driver of the vehicle did not have a driving licence bearing an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. 5. To appreciate this contention, it would be appropriate to refer to certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as under : 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(28) "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chasis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding [twenty-five cubic centimeters]; 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 supper-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-trailer; 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." 6. The question to be decided is whether a licence to drive a tractor permits the licence holder to drive the tractor with a trailer attached to it. The law on this point is now well settled. The apex Court first considered this point in Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2001) 8 SCC 56. There also the question was whether a tractor with trailer attached to it falls within the definition of transport vehicle or not. The law on this point is now well settled. The apex Court first considered this point in Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2001) 8 SCC 56. There also the question was whether a tractor with trailer attached to it falls within the definition of transport vehicle or not. In that case also the driver had a licence to drive a tractor. The Apex Court in this case held as follows : "10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly under Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. 12. The policy is for a tractor. The "effective driving licence" is thus for a tractor. The restriction on a learner driving the tractor when used for transporting goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor could be used for carriage of goods. The tractor by self could not carry goods. 12. The policy is for a tractor. The "effective driving licence" is thus for a tractor. The restriction on a learner driving the tractor when used for transporting goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor could be used for carriage of goods. The tractor by self could not carry goods. The goods would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the extra premium for a trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learners licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licence-holder. Thus a permanent licence-holder having an effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it." 7. In the present case, the Insurance Policy had also covered the liability for a trailer. 8. The question whether a tractor attached with a trailer was a goods vehicle was also considered by the apex Court in National Insurance Co. ltd. v. V. Chinnamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 597. The Apex Court held as follows : "16. 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 be 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 be used for carriage of goods by another person for his business activities." [Emphasis supplied] 9. The Court held that a tractor registered for agricultural use could not be used for carriage of goods belonging to some other person. 10. In my opinion, the decision in Nagashettys case (supra) clearly covers the facts of the present case also. The Court held that a tractor registered for agricultural use could not be used for carriage of goods belonging to some other person. 10. In my opinion, the decision in Nagashettys case (supra) clearly covers the facts of the present case also. In both the cases, the driver of the tractor had an effective/valid licence to drive a tractor without an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. In both cases, the trailer was attached to the tractor and goods were being carried in the trailer. Therefore, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the said case, it is held that a licence holder having an effective /valid driving licence to drive a tractor can drive the same even when a trailer is attached to the tractor and some goods are being carried therein. 11. In view of the above discussion, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. CO No. 276 of 1998 in FAO No.99 of 1998 & CO No. 240 of 1998 in FAO No, 100 of 1998 12. These cross-objections have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The cross-objections are not maintainable in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company when its defences are limited. Hence the same are rejected. Appeals dismissed.