JUDGMENT 1. Instant appeal has been directed against the judgment and award dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran (Raj.) (for short ’the Tribunal’) in MAC case No. 159/2007 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents and awarded a sum of Rs. 8,71,328/- as compensation in favour of the claimants-respondents. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 23.02.2010 passed by the Tribunal, the appellantInsurance Company has submitted this appeal on the following ground inter alia that the accident occurred on 26.09.2007 with a trailer/trolley which was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that in FIR itself i.e. Ex.1, it is the admitted case that the incident has occurred by striking of the motorcycle with the trailer/trolley which was standing five feet away from the divider. Counsel further submitted that the site plan (Ex.3) indicates that the trolley was standing five feet away from the divider and there is no mention about the number of the tractor. Counsel further submitted that when the accident occurred a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ’the Act of 1988’) was given to the registered owner of the vehicle who has also admitted in his reply (Ex.4) that driver Giriraj informed him that the tyre of the tractor was burst and after leaving the trolley on the spot, he went in tractor to get the tyre repaired. Counsel further submitted that since the deceased and the informant are Police personnel, so in connivance with the Police after four days of the incident i.e. on 30.09.2007, the tractor was seized and the tractor was wrongly involved to get compensation. Counsel further submitted that even charge-sheet was not submitted against the driver of the vehicle for the offence under Section 279 IPC and no notice under Section 134 of the Act of 1988 was given to the driver, so all these situations create doubt about the involvement of the tractor in the incident which occurred on 26.09.2007. 4. Counsel further submitted that the deceased was a Police Constable and he was supposed to act in accordance with law, but he was not keeping proper distance as per the road traffic rules and he himself was responsible for the incident. 5. 4. Counsel further submitted that the deceased was a Police Constable and he was supposed to act in accordance with law, but he was not keeping proper distance as per the road traffic rules and he himself was responsible for the incident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors., reported in (2007) 4 RLW (Raj.) 3394 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the FIR cannot be read in part and the FIR is required to be read as a whole, while in the instant case the Tribunal has committed an error and irregularity in reading the FIR in part not in whole. Counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sohan Lal and Ors., reported in 2013 (1) PLR 706 wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that where the trailer is not insured and no part of the tractor is involved in the accident and only trolley is involved in the accident, then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel has further submitted that the deceased was not having license to ply the vehicle even then he was plying the vehicle so he himself was responsible for the incident. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Rehmani Begum Vs. Krishan Pal in MAC Appeal No. 594/2017. Lastly, counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company argued that there was no involvement of the tractor as the Tribunal has erroneously passed the award in favour of the claimants respondents which is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 6. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submitted that the incident has occurred due to striking of the motorcycle with the trailer/trolley and this trailer/trolley was a part of the tractor bearing No. RJ-28R-1015 and both these tractor and trailer were duly insured and even premium of the trailer was taken by the Insurance Company and this fact is evident from the insurance policy (Ex.15). Counsel further submitted that NAW-1 Giriraj who was driver of the tractor bearing No. RJ-28R-1015 has stated in his evidence recorded before the Tribunal that he was the driver on the said tractor and the tyre of the tractor got punctured so he kept the trailer/trolley at Kota Baran Road and went in tractor to get the punctured tyre of the tractor repaired. Thereafter, he came to know that a motorcycle came and collided with the trailer/trolley due to which one person expired. He further stated that he kept stones and bushes near the trolley/trailer. Counsel further submitted that trolley/trailer is not an independent vehicle it is always attached with a tractor and the same was attached with the tractor on the fateful day when the accident occurred and the trailer/trolley was insured with the tractor. Hence, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants respondents and fastening liability upon the Insurance Company. Lastly, they argued that no interference of this Court is required. 7. In addition, counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and award no amount towards future prospects has been awarded, so appropriate directions be issued to the Insurance Company for payment of future prospects. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that though no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been submitted, but the same can be granted by this Court by exercising its powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contentions, counsel for the claimants-respondents has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanchan Devi and Anr., reported in 2008 RAR 349 (Raj.) and the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Resha Devi and Ors., reported in 2017 (4) TAC 288 (All.). Lastly, counsel for the claimants respondents argued that the re-computation of the impugned award may be done by extending the benefit of future prospects. 9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. Ltd. Vs. Resha Devi and Ors., reported in 2017 (4) TAC 288 (All.). Lastly, counsel for the claimants respondents argued that the re-computation of the impugned award may be done by extending the benefit of future prospects. 9. I have considered the submissions made by counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. It is not in dispute that FIR (Ex.1) was registered on 26.09.2007 in which it was mentioned that the deceased and informant Chandramohan were going on a motorcycle bearing No. RJ-28M-6412 and when they reached near KMC Office one trailer/trolley was standing on the public road and the same was not having any reflectors and no stones etc. were kept in front of it and because of the darkness the trailer/trolley was not visible, hence, their motorcycle collided with the trailer/trolley and they fell down and sustained injuries. Mahaveer was plying the motorcycle and Chandramohan was sitting as a pillion rider, but Mahaveer expired after reaching in hospital. After registration of the FIR (Ex.1) when investigation was done by the Police, a notice under Section 133 of the Act of 1988 (Ex.5) was given to the registered owner of the tractor and registered owner was enquired about the trailer/trolley being kept on a public road in a negligent manner. In response of the said notice, the registered owner submitted his reply (Ex.4) and stated that on 25.09.2007 at about 2.00 PM he got a telephonic call from Giriraj that tyre of the vehicle was burst, hence, he kept the trailer/trolley by the side of the road and he went to get the punctured tyre repaired. For a safer side, stones, bushes and clothes were kept there. This fact is not in dispute that both tractor and the trolley were seized by the Police and thereafter the same were given on Supurdagi to the registered owner vide Ex.12. This is also not in dispute that the tractor bearing No. RJ-28R-1015 was insured vide insurance policy (Ex.15) and premium of the trailer was also taken by the Insurance Company which was attached with the tractor. This is not in dispute that trailer/trolley is of no use unless and until it is attached with any vehicle i.e. tractor etc. This is also not in dispute that the tractor bearing No. RJ-28R-1015 was insured vide insurance policy (Ex.15) and premium of the trailer was also taken by the Insurance Company which was attached with the tractor. This is not in dispute that trailer/trolley is of no use unless and until it is attached with any vehicle i.e. tractor etc. because trailer/trolley is not an independent vehicle and it is a part of the tractor and here in the instant case, the Insurance Company has charged the premium of both tractor and attached trailer/trolley by which the accident has occurred. 11. From the perusal of the documents and evidence available on the record, it is clear that the tyre got punctured, hence, the driver of the tractor went in tractor to get the punctured tyre repaired and he kept the trailer/trolley by the side of the road. From bare perusal of the site plan (Ex.3), it is clear that no precautions were taken by the driver while keeping the trolley by the side of the road. No stones or bushes or clothes were found when the inspection of the site was done as per the site plan prepared by the Police. Hence, it is a clear cut case of crossnegligence on the part of the driver. It is also not in dispute that no indicator or reflector were there on the trailer/trolley and due to darkness the trailer/trolley was not visible and the accident occurred and the driver of the motorcycle and the pillion rider sustained injuries. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Anr. Vs. Vatschala Uttam More, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 530 has held that the expression ’use of motor vehicle’ has a wider connotation to cover the period when the vehicle is not moving and is stationary and use of vehicle does not cease on account of the vehicle having been rendered immovable on account of breakdown or mechanical defect or accident. Thus, even if as in the present case the trolley was stationary but the death was caused on account of striking of motorcycle with it due to darkness. Therefore, it is a case where the accident has arisen out of the use of vehicle. Thus, even if as in the present case the trolley was stationary but the death was caused on account of striking of motorcycle with it due to darkness. Therefore, it is a case where the accident has arisen out of the use of vehicle. The trolley was standing near the public road which was not a parking place and there is no evidence that any reflector or any signal on it being standing was reflected. In the circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident was caused and arose due to the trolley which was detached from the tractor after puncture of the tyre. 13. There is no force in the argument of the counsel for the appellant that the deceased was not having driving license. This fact was negated by the evidence of the wife of the deceased who has categorically stated that the deceased was having driving license. The judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant are not applicable under the facts of this case. 14. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly held that there was involvement of the tractor and trailer/trolley in the incident because trailer/trolley is a part on the tractor and both trailer and tractor were insured with the Insurance Company. 15. In view of the above discussions, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 do not call for any interference of this Court. 16. So far as the contention raised by the counsel for the claimants respondents with regard to payment of future prospects in an appeal submitted by the Insurance Company is concerned, the same is not tenable in the eyes of law because no crossappeal or cross-objection has been submitted by the claimants respondents with regard to redressal of their grievance. It appears that the claimants respondents were satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal that is why no cross-appeal or crossobjection was submitted. The judgments cited by the counsel for the claimants respondents are not applicable in the instant case and the same are distinguishable. 17. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 18. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 19. Record of the case be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.