Judgment The National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Tirupathi, is challenging the order dated 10.02.2005, passed in MVOP No.214 of 2000 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The first respondent is the claimant, the second respondent is owner of the tractor and the appellant-Insurance company is second respondent before the Tribunal. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 3.3.2000, at about 5.30 p.m, the claimant was travelling as a coolie in a trailer bearing No. AP 03 245. The said trailer was attached to the tractor bearing No. AP 03 V 244. It is alleged that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, the accident occurred in which the claimant sustained injuries. It appears that the claimant and other coolies fell down and the red mud loaded in the trailer fell upon them. They were shifted to SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati, for treatment. The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The owner of the tractor remained ex parte. The second respondent resisted the claim of the claimant on various grounds. The main contention of the insurance company is that the trailer was not insured with the Insurance company at the time of the accident and the first respondent had not taken any policy for the trailer and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as PW1 and another witness was examined as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance company, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. On appreciation of evidence, with regard to issue No.1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and this finding is not in dispute. On issue No.2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,44,820/- towards compensation and this finding is also specifically not challenged. On issue No.3, the Tribunal having gone through the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and contents of Ex.B1 policy, came to the conclusion that Ex.B1 policy covers the tractor and trailer and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. On issue No.3, the Tribunal having gone through the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and contents of Ex.B1 policy, came to the conclusion that Ex.B1 policy covers the tractor and trailer and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Sri A.Veera Swamy, learned Standing Counsel for the National Insurance Company Limited, appearing for the appellant, submits that the trailer was not insured with the insurance company, and the finding of the Tribunal, on this aspect, is not correct. He further submits that the definition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) makes it clear that the trailer has to be treated as a separate vehicle as referred to under Section 2 (28) of the Act, which defines trailer under Section 2 (44) and 2 (46) of the Act. He also submits that as the trailer is a separate vehicle, the same requires registration. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Laxmanna & ors (II (2005) ACC 228).The next submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that on an earlier occasion, the claim of the claimant under Section 140 of the Act was dismissed against the Insurance Company in I.A.No.610 of 2000 in O.P.No.214 of 2000, by order dated 1.12.2001. The same was challenged by the claimant in AAO No.423 of 2002 and this Court by order dated 25th November, 2003 dismissed the said appeal filed by the claimant holding that the trailer was not insured and therefore, the claimant was not entitled for compensation. The said finding has become final and the same act as res judicata. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Bidyut Kumar Mukherjee and others ( 2001 ACJ 1891 ), wherein it is stated that the principle of res judicata do not apply. But, in the case on hand, the earlier adjudication was on merits and therefore, the principle of res judicata would apply. Lastly, the learned Standing Counsel submits that since there is a clear violation, the insurance company may be ordered to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Bij Mohan and others ((2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 56). Lastly, the learned Standing Counsel submits that since there is a clear violation, the insurance company may be ordered to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Bij Mohan and others ((2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 56). He further submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and the same may be reduced. Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant submits that there is a clear finding of the Tribunal that Ex.B1 policy covers both tractor and trailer and he referred to the recitals of Ex.B1 insurance policy. He further submits that the trailer itself does not move and only when it is attached to the tractor, then only the trailer can move and once the trailer is attached to the tractor, it would be under the control of the driver of the tractor. Therefore, when an accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor and the coolies travelling in the trailer sustained injuries, which is nothing but result of the negligent act of the driver of the tractor and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Gunti Devaiah and others v. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others (2003 (6) ALT 300), wherein this Court held that insurance of trailer is not a mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 146 of the Act and if the prime mover/motor vehicle/tractor is insured and the negligence of the driver of the tractor is established, the compensation is payable by the owner of the tractor and insurer irrespective of the fact whether the victim suffers injury with the tractor or with the trailer. So far as principle of res judicata is concerned, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in R.Khemka and Ors v. M/s. Deccan Enterprises Pvt. Limited ( 1997 (6) ALD 594 ), wherein it is held that the findings recorded in interlocutory applications for deciding prima facie the balance of convenience do not operate as res judicata in subsequent stages of the same proceedings. He also relied on another judgment of this Court in Sarvaraya Sugars Ltd. and others v. A.P.Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd and others ( AIR 1981 A.P. 402 ) and New India Assurance Company Limited, Bidar v. Gandigi Devadas and others ( 2012 (4) ALT 196 ) wherein it is held that if a person has fallen on the ground from the tractor or trailer, he becomes a third party. Ex.B1 is copy of insurance policy wherein it is noted “MF Tractor and Trailer” “use only for tractor exceeding 6 HP. This policy does not cover use whilst drawing greater number of trailers in all them permitted by law”. It appears that the Insurance company had subsequently taken a stand that mentioning of tractorand trailer is a clerical mistake occurred while filling the columns of the policy and no premium amount was collected by the Insurance company for insuring the trailer and the same is the evidence of RWs.1 and 2. RW1 is a Senior Assistant. According to him, the owner had insured tractor bearing No.AP 03 244 on 17.08.2004. His further evidence is that the Divisional Officer had sent a letter by registered post to the first respondent informing him that the trailer bearing No.AP 03 V 245 was not insured with the Insurance company. Ex.B1 policy covers the period from 22.09.1999 to 21.9.2000. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 3.3.2000 i.e., during subsistence of the policy. Even according to RW2, above referred letter was issued to the insured only on 17.08.2004 i.e., after filing the claim petition by the claimant and after receiving notice from the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no proof that above referred letter was served on the first respondent that the trailer was not insured with the second respondent. The Tribunal observed that Exs.B2 to B4 came into existence after notice was served on the insurance company, thus, the Tribunal has given valid reasons for not accepting the evidence of insurance company and for disbelieving Exs.B2 to B4. RW2 was examined to show that the insurance company had collected a sum of Rs.1,709/- towards premium for coverage of tractor only. RW2 was examined to show that the insurance company had collected a sum of Rs.1,709/- towards premium for coverage of tractor only. The Tribunal has also given valid reasons and came to the conclusion that if at all a mistake had occurred, it is only in the office of the Insurance company and for the mistake committed by the Insurance company in collecting premium for tractor alone and for not collecting premium for trailer in spite of showing in the policy that trailer is also insured, therefore the insurance company cannot escape its liability. On these two aspects, having gone through the entire material, I feel that there is no need to disturb the findings of the Tribunal. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that there is no need to consider the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Bij Mohan and others or the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimant in Gunti Devaiah and others v. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others. Suffice to say that no trailer can move on its own unless the same is pulled manually or attached to a tractor. When a trailer is attached to the tractor, it would come under the control of the driver of the tractor and when an accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor, resulting the death or injuries of any person in the trailer have to be treated as result of the negligent act of the driver of the tractor. Even if it is held that a tractor is a separate vehicle and it requires a separate registration and trailer should be separately insured regarding which there are conflicting views, which has to be resolved by a Division Bench or the Apex Court, I am of the view that once the trailer is attached to the tractor, it would come under the control of the driver of the tractor and the movement of the trailer cannot be separated from the movements of the tractor and every movement of trailer would depend on the driver of the tractor, it has to be held that the driver of the tractor is responsible and accordingly owner and insurer of the tractor would be liable to pay compensation where an accident occurs due to the involvement of trailer. Coming to the aspect whether the claimant was an unauthorized passenger or a coolie, irrespective of the fact as to whether he was an unauthorized passenger or coolie, the moment he is detached from trailer or tractor or lorry and falls on ground, he becomes a third party. In this case the claimant had fallen on the ground and sustained injury may be due to fall of red mud from trailer or for any other reason, such person has to be treated as third party. It is clear that he did not sustain injury while he was travelling in the trailer. Due to the impact i.e., rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, he had fallen on the ground. Thus he was detached from tractor and trailer at the time when he sustained injuries and therefore, he becomes a third party. Therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to all such persons. So far as the present case is concerned, even if the Insurance company feels that the owner had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and not paid the premium for trailer, it is left open to the Insurance company to initiate necessary proceedings against the owner of the vehicle and recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. In the circumstances, the rate of interest is reduced to 7.5%. MACMA is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this MACMA shall stand dismissed.