JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant United India Insurance Company Limited against the judgment cum award dated 30.4.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar in MAC No. 68/2011 whereby the Tribunal accepted the claim application filed by the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 claimants and awarded them compensation of Rs. 11,40,000/- on account of death of Chanan Singh and whilst accepting the claim, the appellant Insurance Company as well as the respondents No. 4 and 5, the driver and owner respectively of the tractor bearing registration No.RJ13.7M.7194 involved in the accident were held jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. The appellant Insurance Company has approached this Court by way of this appeal assailing the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding it jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award alongwith the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 2. Shri Anil Bachhawat learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company has assailed the judgment of the Tribunal contending that on the date of the accident, the same was being plied after attaching a trolley/trailer thereto. Thus, as per him, as soon as a trolley/trailer was attached to the tractor, the modification would form a transport vehicle/goods carriage. He relies on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in 2006 ACJ 1 and contends that as the offending vehicle was modified and converted to a transport vehicle, it was essential that the driver thereof should be possessed of a licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. He further contended that the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes and as the same was being used as a transport vehicle by attaching a trolley thereto, when it met with the accident, the Insurance Company would not be liable to cover the risk of the damages caused by the use of the tractor when being used in this mode. He drew the attention of this Court to the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue No. 2 regarding the defences raised by the Insurance Company at para 22 of the judgment wherein the Tribunal held that the tractor driver was having a driving licence Ex.-10, which was valid for driving a motor vehicle and a tractor from 24.6.2006 till 23.6.2011. Learned Counsel submits that a tractor is covered under a light motor vehicle, but as a trolley/trailer was attached to it, the combination took shape of a transport vehicle and thus, in view of the conditions of the insurance policy, it was essential for its driver to be possessed of a valid licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. Learned Counsel submits that as admittedly in this case the driver was not having a valid licence for driving a transport vehicle at the time of the accident, the vehicle was being plied in breach of the policy conditions and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award. 3. Per contra, Shri Rakesh Matoria, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 5 the driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle as well as Shri Rajendra Charan learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and claimants vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. 4. Shri Rakesh Matoria contends that the tractor is covered under the light motor vehicle and therefore, simply because the trolley had been attached thereto, the nature of the vehicle would not change. He thus submits that the tractor was being used in accordance with the terms of insurance policy and the Tribunal committed no error or illegality in holding the appellant Insurance Company responsible to satisfy the award. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the impugned judgment cum award. 6. Two facts are undisputed and admitted from the material available on record; firstly that a trolley had been attached to the tractor when it met with the accident and secondly; the driver of the tractor was having licence valid only for driving a light motor vehicle, a motorcycle with gear and a tractor. The issue regarding the effect of a trolley/trailer being attached to the tractor was examined in detail by this Court whilst considering the case of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Girdhari Ram and Ors. The issue regarding the effect of a trolley/trailer being attached to the tractor was examined in detail by this Court whilst considering the case of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Girdhari Ram and Ors. (S.B.C.M.A. No. 1652/2013) and other connected appeals decided on 14.2.2014 and relying on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Natwar Parikh (supra) and the Notification No. 1248(E) 5.11.2004 issued by the Central Government categorising the various kinds of the transport vehicles and non-transport vehicles, this Court held that no sooner a trailer or a trolley is attached to the tractor, it takes the shape of a transport vehicle. Accordingly, in order to comply with the conditions of the insurance policy, it would be essential for the driver of such a combination to be possessed of a licence authorising him to drive transport vehicle. This Court also held that as soon as the tractor is plied at a place other than an agricultural field, it assumes the character of a transport vehicle. 7. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario, this Court is of the opinion that when the accident occurred, the tractor was being used in breach of the insurance policy conditions. Thus, the insurance Company was entitled to be exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award in view of the defences available to it under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment cum award dated 30.4.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar whereby the Tribunal held the appellant Insurance Company jointly and severally responsible with the owner and the driver of the tractor to satisfy the award (is quashed to that extent. 9. Now, it is directed that the appellant Insurance Company shall satisfy the award upfront and thereafter, shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner by filing execution before the Tribunal.No order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******