ORDER 1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under aection 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved of award dated 19.5.2017 passed by learned II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni in MACC No.01/2016 on the ground that its a case of false implication of the tractor. Initially in the marg intimation (Ex.P-5) there is mention of harvester No.4598 owned by Tiwari and later on in the FIR after two months tractor No.MP-22-AA-4598 was implicated. 2. Second ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that even if it is presumed that harvester was mounted on the tractor, then as per IMT.48 separate premium was chargeable for harvester and in absence of separate premium Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award. 3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sohan Lal & Others, 2014 ACJ 1583 . 4 . Learned counsel for the claimants and owner supports the award and submits that no indulgence is required in the matter. 5 . After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it is evident that owner of the tractor is Amit Tiwari. In the first report itself i.e. Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-5) there is mention of his name and also that harvester alongwith No.4598. Thus, there is identification of the tractor in its owner in the dehati nalishi itself, therefore, contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that tractor has been falsely implicated is not made out. Once it is mentioned on the date of accident itself that harvester caused accident and number is mentioned as 4598, name of the owner is mentioned, then admittedly when harvester is not required to be registered separately registration No.4598 that of the tractor on which harvester was mounted and not of the harvester. Thus, first ground is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 6. As far as terms and conditions mentioned in IMT.48 are concerned, it reads as under :-- IMT.48. Thus, first ground is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 6. As far as terms and conditions mentioned in IMT.48 are concerned, it reads as under :-- IMT.48. Agricultural and Forestry Vehicles And Other Miscellaneous vehicles with Trailers attached - Extended Cover It is hereby declared and agreed that in consideration of an additional premium of Rs...., the indemnity provided by this Policy shall apply in respect of any trailer (including Agricultural Implements such as Ploughs, Harrows and the like) described in the under noted Schedule of trailers as though it were a vehicle described in the Schedule and had set against it in the Shedule the value set against it in the under noted Schedule of trailers. Provided that the Insurer shall be under no liability under section I of the Policy in respect of breakage of any part of the agricultural trailer or implements caused by ground obstructions. Schedule of Trailers * Description Insured’s Declared value (IDV) * Insert make, number or some other means of identification. Threshing Machines, Drums, Bailing Machines, Trusses and Tiers must be identified as such. Subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions, conditions and limitations of this Policy. 7. A reading of the IMT.48 makes it clear that additional premium is payable in respect of any trailer mentioned in schedule of trailers. Insurance Company has though mentioned threshing machines, drums, bailing machines, trusses and tiers, but has not mentioned harvester to be included in the schedule of trailers and therefore, harvester being not a trailer mentioned in the schedule no additional premium will be payable in terms of IMT 48 and therefore, this second ground taken to assail the impugned award is also not made out. 8. It is settled principle of law as held in Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 3509 , that special meaning of trade, business, etc. as a necessary consequence of the principle that words are understood in their ordinary or natural meaning in relation to the subject matter, in legislation relating to a particular trade, business, profession, art or science, words having a special meaning in that context are understood in that sense. Such a special meaning is called the technical meaning to distinguish it from the more common meaning that the word may have. 9. Such a special meaning is called the technical meaning to distinguish it from the more common meaning that the word may have. 9. In Unwin v. Hanson, (1891) 2 QB 115 (C.A.) p. 119, where His Lord Esher, M.R. observed : If the Act is one passed with reference to a particular trade, business, or transaction, and words are used which everybody conversant with that trade, business or transaction, knows and understands to have a particular meaning in it, then the words are to be construed as having that particular meaning. 10. When IMT.48 is examined in terms of the aforesaid law and legal proposition then, there is no iota of doubt that harvester when mounted with a tractor, is not included in the schedule of trailers requiring additional premium. 11. As far as decision of High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra), by a learned Single Judge is concerned, that is only a persuasive value and is not binding on this High Court specially when Division Bench of this High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Indore v. Kanha & Another, 2008 SCC Online MP 710 has itself held that if a harvester is mounted on a tractor and accident takes place and if the tractor is insured, then there is no need for separate insurance of the harvester calling for rejection of the claim petition. 1 2 . Thus, in the light of the judgment of this High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Indore v. Kanha & Another, (supra), which is binding on this Bench, judgment rendered by High Court of Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh being only of a persuasive value and not a binding precedent, cannot be accepted in preference to the judgment of the own High Court. Therefore, on all the three grounds appeal fails and is dismissed. 13. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.