JUDGMENT Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - Instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance company against the judgment and award dated 05.07.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Claim Case NO. 439/2017 whereby, while awarding compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,96,800/- to the claimants, 50% liability has been fastened upon the appellant Insurance company of the Trailer. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Issue no.1 regarding the negligence and liability of the Horse truck and attached trailer (trolley) has been wrongly decided by the learned Tribunal. It is argued that that the Horse truck and trailer were separately insured. The trolley was insured as per Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since the trailer neither independently moves nor caused accident and since the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Horse Truck, therefore, insurance company of only Horse Truck is liable for losses caused due to accident and owner and insurance company of trailer cannot be saddled with the liability for loss caused due to the accident. 3. I have head learned counsel for the and gone through the impugned judgment and award. 4. There is no dispute regarding the accident or amount of compensation. It is also not disputed that the Horse Truck was insured with MAGMA-HDI General Insurance Company and the trailer (trolley) was insured with appellant Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. The only dispute is with regard to liability to pay compensation by the insurer of Horse truck and insurer of trailer (trolley) as to whether the insurer of the trailer (trolley) attached with the Horse truck can be charged with the liability of payment of compensation in motor accident cases due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Horse truck? 5. Trailer as defined in the Motor Vehicle Act means by any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicles. 6. The word 'trailer' was separately defined from the inclusive definition, which was made. The trailer was defined as motor vehicle, which was intended to drawn by a motor vehicle. Thus, it is evident that it is not a mechanically propelled vehicle either power of propulsion is transmitted from external or internal sources. 6. The word 'trailer' was separately defined from the inclusive definition, which was made. The trailer was defined as motor vehicle, which was intended to drawn by a motor vehicle. Thus, it is evident that it is not a mechanically propelled vehicle either power of propulsion is transmitted from external or internal sources. Therefore, even though, Section 2(46) of the Act embraces trailer within the definition of 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle', but further distinction has to be drawn between the vehicle and motor vehicle and that distinction has to be carved out on the basis of the specific definition given to the word trailer. Therefore, while all the motor vehicles may fall within the definition of vehicles, but, all the vehicles are not motor vehicles. The trailer as such is an attachment made to the prime mover either a tractor or a mechanical contrivance and it has no independent propulsion. The trailer always is a detachable container, which does not have any independent driving system. Its movements are dependent on the prime mover, such as tractor, motor vehicle etc. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the trailer/trolley, which is attached with the prime mover is a part of that vehicle. Ordinarily, a contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity. It is settled proposition of law that when a vehicle belonging to an owner is insured with the insurance company and it is being driven by a driver employed by the insured, when it meets with an accident, the primary liability under law for payment of compensation is that of the driver. Once the driver is liable, the owner of the vehicle becomes vicariously liable for payment of compensation. It is this vicarious liability of the owner that is indemnified by the insurance company. A third party for whose benefit the insurance is taken, is therefore entitled to show, when he moves under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, that the driver was negligent in driving the vehicle resulting in the accident and that the owner was vicariously liable and that the insurance company was bound to indemnify the owner. It is not the defense in the present case that the insured trailer was being driven without knowledge and permission of the owner/insured. It is not the defense in the present case that the insured trailer was being driven without knowledge and permission of the owner/insured. Since the trolley/trailer was attached to the Horse truck being driven rash and negligently by the driver, hence, the insurance company of trolley cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation by taking the plea that the trolley has not caused the accident. 8. Thus, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening liability upon the appellant insurer of the trolley. Accordingly, the misc. appeal having no merit is hereby dismissed.