JUDGMENT : PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (afterwards referred as ‘Act of 1988’) has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 17.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Siker (afterwards referred as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No. 12/2011, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,15,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 16.12.2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.08.22010 at about 11:00 AM when deceased Sitaram was going towards Bhagdio Ki Dhani from Panchota, a Tractor bearing No. RJ-23-RA-4620, being driven rashly & negligently by its driver, hit the deceased from back side, as a result of which, Sitaram sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death. An FIR was lodged and after investigation police submitted challan against driver of the offending vehicle. 3. A claim petition to this effect was filed by the claimants for award of compensation. 4. The claim petition was contested by the respondents by filing reply denying the averments made in the claim petition. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal has framed as many as five issues. On behalf of the claimants AW-1 Hardev and AW-2 Ramchander were examined and on behalf of non-claimants NAW-1 Devilal and NAW-2 N.P. Tyagi were examined. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal vide impugned judgment has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,15,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 16.12.2010. 7. Before delineating the core question regarding fastening or exonerating the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation, it would be appropriate to refer to the following judgments necessary to resolve the issue involved in the present appeal. 8. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Girdhari Ram and Others, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1652/2013, decided on 14.02.2014 whilst analyzing the definitions of Tractor, Trailer, and Goods Vehicle stipulated in the Motor Vehicles Act, and placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the matter of Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. vs. Girdhari Ram and Others, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1652/2013, decided on 14.02.2014 whilst analyzing the definitions of Tractor, Trailer, and Goods Vehicle stipulated in the Motor Vehicles Act, and placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the matter of Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 2005 SCC 3428 held that a Trailer when attached to a Tractor converts into a category of a Goods Vehicle and without paying the extra premium and having a valid licence to ply the goods vehicle violates the conditions of the policy, hence Insurance Company is not under an obligation to indemnify the third party. 9. Similarly, Punjab High Court in the matter of The New India Assurance Com. Ltd. vs. Sohan Lal and Others, FAO Nos. 72, 135/1994 and 1677/1993, decided on 10.12.2012 held as under: “10. The case that squarely raised the issue and the answer it found to require insurance for the trailer independently arose in The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs. N. Chandrashekaran and Others, 1997 ACJ 512 . The court held after adverting to the definition of tractor and trailer “if the tractor draws a trailer and the accident is caused by such tractor-trailer then the vehicle causing the accident would not be a tractor but a goods vehicle. It is only if both tractor and trailer are insured the insurer would be liable to indemnify the owner against claims arising out of the use of tractor and trailer. This view would be in conformity with the other statutory provisions which require even a Trailer to be insured.” (VII) Principle of pay and recover could apply only if there exists in the policy of insurance for the particular vehicle that caused the accident.” 10. Before arriving at the above conclusion Punjab High Court gave the following reasons while analysing the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act: “A trailer can never be driven by itself. It has no locomotion. It can be attached to a tractor. It can be attached to something which can pull it. The driver would always be on that part of the vehicle which provides motion to the trailer. It has no locomotion. It can be attached to a tractor. It can be attached to something which can pull it. The driver would always be on that part of the vehicle which provides motion to the trailer. Therefore, the trailer by itself cannot be used in a public place and by its use, no accident can occur and if some accident occurs, it would not be on account of the fault of the driver because the trailer would have no driver of its own. We fail to follow and where to go. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Chhatrapati and it must be negatived. In that case, the claim arose out of the accident when the rider of a motorcycle collided with a tractor when the driver of the trailer suddenly swerved to the left projecting the right side of the trailer which knocked down the motorcyclist. The Tribunal's analysis of all the evidence led to recording a finding that the accident was the outcome of rashness of the driver of the tractor (and therefore of the trailer) that knocked down the deceased. If there was no trailer, possibly the tractor would have moved away and there would not have been even an accident. The Court reasoned that because the trailer was directly involved in the accident, it must be taken the driver of the tractor was ipso facto the driver of the trailer as well. In that case, the tractor had been insured with the Hindustan Ideal Insurance Company, while the trailer had been insured with the Skandia Insurance Company. The Tribunal had passed an award against the Insurance Company for the trailer and had exonerated the Insurance Company of the tractor. The appeal had been filed by the insured by joining the insurer of the trailer and the Court was finding that the insurer of the trailer was liable. The Tribunal had passed an award against the Insurance Company for the trailer and had exonerated the Insurance Company of the tractor. The appeal had been filed by the insured by joining the insurer of the trailer and the Court was finding that the insurer of the trailer was liable. This judgment is cited only for bringing out the legal and judicial approach for requirement of having to take a policy of insurance for the trailer and the liability that may be fastened on the insurer of the trailer although the accident could have been caused by the driver of the Tractor, for, there really is no distinction between the driver of the tractor and the driver of the trailer.” “Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires that no person shall drive any motor vehicle unless it is registered in accordance with the Chapter. The assumption that is made in many cases is that since Section 39 talks about registration of only a motor vehicle, a trailer which is not mechanically propelled by itself does not require registration. This is not correct, as will be evident from the requirement by distinct provision brought through Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under: “61. Application of Chapter to trailer: (1) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the registration of trailers as they apply to the registration of any other motor vehicle. (2) The registration mark assigned to a trailer shall be displayed in such manner on the side of the drawing vehicle as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (3) No person shall drive a motor vehicle to which a trailer is or trailers are attached unless the registration mark of the motor vehicle so driven is displayed on the trailer or on the last trailer in the train, as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 11. The tenets laid down in the above cases and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are to be summarized as follows: (a) A tractor-trailer would constitute a goods carriage under Section 2(14) and accordingly, it would fall in the classification of a transport vehicle as defined in Section 2(47). The tenets laid down in the above cases and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are to be summarized as follows: (a) A tractor-trailer would constitute a goods carriage under Section 2(14) and accordingly, it would fall in the classification of a transport vehicle as defined in Section 2(47). (b) The test applied by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that in a case when a vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes capable of use for transporting goods, it has to be inferred that it is modified for the carriage of goods. (c) A Tractor trolley being used for transporting agricultural purposes or for personal use would hardly be of any relevance because the important question is as regards the expertise of the driver to drive the transport vehicle and the premium payable for insuring the same. (d) The moment a vehicle falls in the category of the transport vehicle, the premium payable for the insurance thereof would be more than that payable for insuring a light motor vehicle. As the liability of the insurance company is undisputedly relative to the premium received by it, the aforesaid facts are significant. Thus, in both the situations i.e. (1) When a driver is having a license to drive a light motor vehicle and while driving a transport vehicle, he causes an accident and (2) when such a vehicle which is insured as light motor vehicle is adapted to carry the goods, then it assumes the character of a transport vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Act, there would be a breach of policy conditions. (e) The Tractor with the trolley when being plied on the public road and met with a mishap shall fall within the ambit of the transport vehicle. (f) Under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a Trailer when plying on the road mandates to be registered and as per the guidelines of The Insurance Motor Tariff Advisory Committee (IMT), a statutory body established under the Insurance Act, its insurance is also required. 12. In catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the effect of breach of policy conditions and held that when there is a breach of policy conditions, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to satisfy the award. 13. 12. In catena of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the effect of breach of policy conditions and held that when there is a breach of policy conditions, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to satisfy the award. 13. Applying the proposition of pay and recover postulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 , the initial burden to satisfy the awards is placed on the insurance company. The insurance company after satisfying the awards shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner/insured of the erring vehicle by filing execution proceedings directly before the Tribunal. 14. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment specifically dealt with the arguments advanced by the insurance company and at Para 16 opined as under: ^^16- tgka rd Hkqxrku ds nkf;Ro dk Á’u gS] ;ksX; vf/koDrk okLrs vÁkFkhZ la[;k&3 dk dFku gS fd oDr nq?kZVuk VsªDVj ds Vªksyh yxh Fkh vkSj Vªksyh yxk gqvk VªsDVj Hkkj okgu esa vkrk gS ftlls pykus dk dksbZ ykbZlsUl ugha FkkA vkijkf/kd Ádj.k la[;k 69@2010 esa dksbZ Vªksyh tCr ugha gqbZ gS RkFkk u gh fdlh Vªksyh dk eSdsfudy ijh{k.k gqvk gSA VSªDVj ds Vªksyh yxs gksus ek= ls Hkkj okgu ugha gks tkrk tc rd ;g ugha crk;k tkrk fd Vªksyh Hkjh gqbZ Fkh vkSj lkeku ifjofrZr fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj nq?kZVuk dk dkj.k VªsDVj ds Vªksyh yxk gksuk gh ,d ek= dkj.k gksA bl Ádj.k esa p’enhn lk{kh jkepUæ us Áfrijh{k.k esa ;g crk;k gS fd VªsDVj ds Vªksyh Fkh ijUrq VDdj Vªksyh ls ugha gqbZA Vªksyh esa D;k ifjogu fd;k tk jgk Fkk] Vªksyh [kkyh Fkh] ;fn lkeku Fkk rks otu fdruk Fkk] rFkk Vªksyh dh otg ls pkyd dk VªsDVj ij fu;a=.k ugha jgk gks] ,slh fdlh lk{; ds vHkko esa ;ksX; vf/koDrk vÁkFkhZ la[;k&3 dh vksj ls ÁLrqr U;kf;d fu.kZ; ekuuh; ckWEcs mPp U;k;ky; vkSjaxkckn ihB vihy uEcj 250@1996 us'kuy ba'kksjUl dEiuh fyfeVsM cuke lq'khyk] fnukad 21-07-2009 ls dksbZ enn ugha feyrh] ,slh fLFkfr esa vÁkFkhZ la[;k&3 dh vksj ls ÁLrqr rdZ Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSaA Áfrdj dh vnk;xh dk nkf;Ro vÁkFkhZ la[;k&3 chek dEiuh dk gh gSaA** 15. The appellant Insurance Company in the pleadings categorically averred that at the time of the occurrence, the Trailer was attached to the questioned tractor and the Trolley was neither registered nor insured. Therefore, there was a breach of the insurance policy and the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability to indemnify the legal representatives of the deceased. 16. To prove the above contention the appellant examined the NAW-2 N.P. Tyagi who specifically deposed that the Trolley was attached to the questioned Tractor. Even the eyewitness Ramchandra in his deposition has unequivocally accepted that Trolley was attached to the Tractor at the time of the mishap. 17. In the FIR also the fact of attachment of the Trolley to the Tractor is indubitably narrated. 18. The rationale for disbelieving the oral testimonies of aforesaid two witnesses in the impugned judgment does not appear to be reasonable. If an accident has occurred with the tractor and the investigating agency does not seize the attached trailer then it cannot be a ground to disregard the fact that the trolley was not affixed to the tractor. Recovery of the erring vehicle or attached trolley etc only a piece of corroborating nature of evidence. To prove the guilt of an accused under the offence of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code it is not imperative for the investigating agency to compulsorily seize every article attach to the erring vehicle. The guilt of an accused can be proved by substantive evidence and inherently if the version is conceivable and trustworthy then the court can lean upon such evidence. Further, it is also not binding to bring a Tractor in the category of goods vehicle until the Trailer attached to it is filled up with the goods. Even the empty Trailer attached to the Tractor comes within the ambit of the goods vehicle as enumerated in section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability over the appellant Insurance Company. 19. Corollary to the above, the appeal is allowed. The appellant Insurance Company is exonerated with the condition to satisfy the award with the liberty to recover the award money from the driver and owner of the vehicle.