JUDGMENT:- Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. The appellant being the Insurer of the tractor namely the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed this appeal under Section 173(1) of M. V. Act challenging the liability fastened on it and directed to pay compensation of Rs.61,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 3. The main grounds urged in the appeal are that the respondent No.3 who filed a claim petition against the appellant as well as respondent N os.1 and 2 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 14-11-2000. The contention of the appellant is that in respect of the tractor bearing Registration No. KA 17/M386 though the policy was issued to indemnify the owner of the tractor no policy of indemnity is issued in respect of the trailer No.KA-17 M 1456. Therefore, the tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion that the owner and insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to respondent No.3-claimant. Hence, this appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of learned Counsel Sri A. N. Krishna Swamy for the appellant, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the records. 5. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No.2 Sri Ajjappa was the owner of the tractor No. KA 17 IM-386 but not the owner of the trailer which was used on that day to carry fodder on hire basis. Respondent No.3 H. R. Basavarajachari was a coolie in the tractor and trailer. On account of rash and negligent driving of tractor by respondent No.1, respondent No.3 sustained injuries which has not been disputed either by the appellant or by respondent No.2 the owner of the vehicle. It is further argued that the tractor and trailer constitute a goods vehicle. If a trailer is not attached to the tractor, then it will become a motor vehicle. Therefore, the trailer was not insured by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, for the injuries sustained by a coolie of an uninsured trailer, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor i.e. respondent No.2 herein and the tribunal has not considered the evidence of RW 1 Sri S.A. Khader. Asst. Therefore, the trailer was not insured by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, for the injuries sustained by a coolie of an uninsured trailer, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor i.e. respondent No.2 herein and the tribunal has not considered the evidence of RW 1 Sri S.A. Khader. Asst. Divisional Manager of the appellant Company and the tribunal has misread the entire evidence. Therefore, the appeal is to be allowed. Liability fixed on the appellant is to be set aside and ultimately owner of the tractor alone is liable to pay the compensation as he used an uninsured trailor to carry the fodder on hire basis. In this behalf, learned Counsel for the appellant Sri A. N. Krishna Swamy has relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in ILR 1992 Kar 1335 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hanumantappa) wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that: - "under Sections 2(18), (30), (32) and 2(8) read with Section 95(1) and (2) of M. V. Act 1939 - Tractor is a motor vehicle; tractor attached with trailer is a goods vehicle Under Act policy, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation of coolies or employees travelling in tractor-trailer subject to maximum six, limited to liability under Workmen's Compensation Act, unless extra coverage is taken." He has also relied on another decision of this Court reported in ILR 1996 Kar. page 2157 (The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. N. Chandrashekaran & Ors.) wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that:- "Section 96(2)(b):- insured tractor drawing uninsured trailer held, not one of those conditions where insurer can avoid liability." Further it has been held as follows :- "But 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 tractor but a goods vehicle. It is only if both tractor and trailer are insured, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the owner against claims arising out of the use of tractor and trailer. It is only if both tractor and trailer are insured, the insurer 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." According to Section 2(44) of the M. V. Act, 1988 "tractor" means :- "a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion), but exclude a road-roller;" According to S.2(46) of the M. V. Act, 1988, "trailer" means:- "any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle." According to S.2(47) of the M. V. Act, "transport vehicle" means:- "a public service vehicle, a good carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle." Therefore, the trailer attached to the tractor was not insured. If any coolie is carried in a trailer by the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor. Therefore liability fixed on the appellant is liable to be set aside. Ultimately the owner is liable to pay the compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that without a tractor. a trailer will not move. Therefore, respondent No.2 has insured the tractor but not the trailer. The tribunal is right in fixing the liability on the Appellant-Insurance Company, directing it to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal has to be dismissed. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 Sri Rajashekhar K. has relied on a decision of this Court reported in ILR 2003 Kar. page 3203 (Noor Baig Vs. Syed Anwer and Anwer Sab and others) wherein it has been held as follows ;- "Accident was occurred due to the use of the tractor and not due to the use of Trailor - No part of the trailor has dashed against the deceased - Tribunal has committed an error in exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company." The Member of the Claims Tribunal is right in fixing the joint liability on the appellant and the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation with interest. 7. 7. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for both parties, the short points that arise for consideration and determination are ;- (a) whether in respect of any injury or death to a coolie carried in an uninsured trai lor engaged by the owner of the vehicle on hire basis to transport fodder? (b) If so, the appellant-insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor ? 8. Admittedly respondent No.2 is the owner of the tractor KA -17 M 386 and the said tractor was insured with the appellant and as on the date of accident the insurance policy issued was in force. Admittedly the uninsured trailer was hired by respondent No.2 to transport the fodder and respondent No.3 being a coolie met with an accident and sustained injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor, by respondent No.1 Sri Shekarappa. Law was set in motion on the basis of the complaint of Sri Ajjappa-respondent No.2 and a case has been registered against Shekarappa for an offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337, I.P.C. Except respondent No.3-Basavarajachari, no other inmates of the trailer have been examined. The Division Bench of this High Court has held that the tractor is a motor vehicle but the trailer is a goods vehicle. If a trailer is attached to the tractor, then it will become goods vehicle. Otherwise, tractor is separate from trailer. Both tractor and trailer are to be insured as on the date of accident. The policy was in force in respect of the tractor but not the trailer. Then the insurer of both tractor and the owner of the trailer are to be made as proper parties before the MACT. In the instant case, respondent No.2 used the uninsured trailer and it was hired to transport the fodder and respondent No.3 was stated to be a coolie who had sustained the injuries on account of use of the motor vehicle. Therefore, if the owner had insured the trailer by paying extra premium to cover the risk of coolies, then the insurer is bound to indemnify the owners of the tractor and trailer. Therefore, if the owner had insured the trailer by paying extra premium to cover the risk of coolies, then the insurer is bound to indemnify the owners of the tractor and trailer. In the instant case, respondent No.2 who is the owner of the vehicle has not appeared and filed any statement of objection stating that he is not the owner of the trailer and it was somebody' s trailer engaged on hire basis in which he carried the fodder. In the absence of such evidence, that the liability fastened on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation jointly along with respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle i.e. tractor is illegal, incorrect and perverse against the settled principles of law in the case of Noor Baig Vs. Syed Anwer alias Anwer Sab and others, reported in ILR 2003 Kar 3203 in which case deceased was a rider of a luna and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor and traller. Therefore deceased has become a third. party. The facts of that case are not applicable to the case on hand. 9. In the instant case, respondent No.3 was an inmate/coolie of the trailer but not tractor. Therefore, respondent No.2 who is the owner of the tractor used the uninsured trailer belonging to some other person to carry fodder on hire basis. He is alone liable to pay the compensation to respondent No.3 who was travelling in the trailer as a coolie. 10. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award passed by the M.A.C.T. in fixing the liability to pay compensation of Rs.61,000/- with interest at 9% per annum on the appellant is set aside and the respondent Nos. l and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the tractor are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to respondent No.3. Amount, if any, in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant. Appeal allowed.