JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal) in MAC. Petition No. 47 of 1997 decided on 23.6.2000. 2. The admitted facts are that deceased Gopal Sharma son of claimant Kanta Rani was running a Karyana shop at Rakkar Colony Una. On 1.6.1997 at about 8.30 p.m. he had gone to urinate on the side of the road. It is alleged that a tractor No.PB-12-A-6386 came at a high speed and the trolley attached with the tractor hit the deceased who died as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The owner and driver of the tractor contested the claim petition on the ground that in fact no accident has taken place. The Insurance Company has taken up various pleas including the plea that the tractor was not insured with it. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was hit by the trolley attached with the tractor. The mother was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1, 37,000/- and it was ordered that the Insurance Company should pay this amount. 3. I have heard Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant. He submits that in fact the tractor was not insured with the Insurance Company. He has however fairly stated that as per Ext.R-2 the trolley attached to the tractor was admittedly insured with the appellant Insurance Company. This rather unique position has come out in the present case where the main motor vehicle is not insured but the trailer attached with the motor vehicle is insured. "Motor vehicle" under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been defined as follows: "(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 chassis 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." 4. It is thus clear that for a vehicle to be shown to be motor vehicle it must be mechanically propelled and the power of propulsion should be transmitted thereto from an external or internal source. The trailer has also been included in the definition of motor vehicle or vehicle. 5. Though the trailer is included in the definition of motor vehicle or vehicle in case the trailer is not attached to any mechanically propelled vehicle the same in my opinion may not fall within the definition of motor vehicle. However, in the present case the trailer in question was attached with the tractor which definitely is a mechanically propelled vehicle and, therefore, the trailer also became a motor vehicle. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased was hit by the trailer and not by the tractor that means that the deceased was hit by the vehicle which was insured with the Insurance Company. Why the Insurance Company insured the trailer without ensuring that the mechanically propelled motor vehicle i.e. tractor has been insured or not is something which the Insurance Company should have explained. No explanation has come forward on behalf of the Insurance Company. In my opinion, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability. 6. The contention with regard to quantum on behalf of Insurance Company cannot be allowed to be raised in this appeal since the Insurance Company has not sought permission before the Tribunal to contest the claim on all grounds. 7. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -