JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Insurance company has come up in appeal challenging the validity of judgment dated 12.5.2008 rendered by the District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun, whereby the liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the appellant. 2. The accident occurred while Mr. Shabbir was returning after offering morning prayers in the mosque and the tractor attached with trailer, being driven rashly and negligently (as disclosed in the FIR) dashed him making him seriously injured and ultimately he succumbed to his injuries. 3. Only the tractor was covered by the insurance policy excluding the trailer attached therewith. Trailer was filled with stones/pebbles. The Tribunal was of the view that since the tractor was being used to transport stones/pebbles from one field to some nearby ditch, so the use of vehicle at the relevant time cannot be attributed to be commercial in nature. Therefore, the liability should have been fastened upon the insurance company because as per the view of Tribunal, the vehicle was being used for agricultural purposes at the relevant time. 4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a full bench judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. V. State of Karanataka & others’ 2006 ACJ 1, wherein it was held that when a trailer is attached to a tractor and used for transporting goods from one place to another, then the tractor would constitute a ‘goods carriage’ under section 2(14) and, consequently, a ‘transport vehicle’ under section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. Reliance was also placed upon a judgment rendered by another Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Bhajan Singh v. Jarnail Singh & others’ in Appeal from Order No.433 of 2010, decided on 6.8.2013, though it was a matter of contributory negligence, but it was held therein that the plying tractor on the road with trailer amounts to violation of terms of insurance policy. It was thus, held that the Tribunal had committed no error of law in holding that the insurance company was not liable to make payment because it was admitted in the prosecution evidence, in that case, that the trailer was attached to the tractor on which the labourers were boarded. It was thus, held that the Tribunal had committed no error of law in holding that the insurance company was not liable to make payment because it was admitted in the prosecution evidence, in that case, that the trailer was attached to the tractor on which the labourers were boarded. The Court accepted the plea of insurance company that when the tractor was attached with the trailer, it had more chances of meeting with the accident as compared to the tractor without such attachment. 6. Here, the learned counsel for tractor owner argued that the instant case cannot be equated with that of Bhajan Singh’s case (Supra) because in the latter, the trailer was being used for transporting labourers whereas in the case in hand, it was being used for transporting stones/pebbles from one field to some other place. The Court is not inclined to accept such argument on behalf of the vehicle owner because firstly, even in the plain areas of Vikasnagar, District Dehradun where this accident occurred, no agricultural field does have so much quantity of stones/pebbles so that to reflect the truthfulness in the argument of learned counsel. Secondly, even if assuming that the pebbles/stones were filled in the trailer, then also, there was no cause for the vehicle being driven so rashly and negligently. The story shows that the trailer was being used for commercial purposes and not for agricultural purposes. Admittedly, this trailer did not have a registration number, much less any insurance cover. Thus, the liability cannot be fastened upon the insurance company. 7. In view of what has been stated above, the judgment of the Tribunal as regards fastening liability upon the appellant-insurance company is modified to the extent that the liability is fastened upon the tractor owner/respondent no.8 Sri Kayyum. As regards the quantum assessed by the Tribunal, the judgment is not disturbed. 8. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 9. The amount deposited by the insurance company in the Tribunal as also in this Court, in the form of statutory deposit, be returned to it along with the interest accrued thereon. For the amount which has been paid to the claimant, the appellant-insurance company would be at liberty to recover the same from the vehicle owner. 10. Let the LCR be returned along with a copy of this order for compliance of the order.