Agricultural labourers accompanying produce in a trailer are covered under its agricultural liability policy.

The claimant was injured while travelling as a labourer in a trailer carrying jute and jute sticks, attached to a tractor. The tractor driver moved to the left and struck an electric post; a live wire fell on the vehicles and injured the claimant.

The tractor and trailer were separately insured, with the appellant insuring the trailer under an “Agricultural Liability Only” policy. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held both insurers liable in equal proportions and awarded ₹3,09,000 with interest at 6% per annum. The trailer’s insurer appealed, challenging its liability.

1. Whether the claimant, travelling in the trailer as a labourer accompanying agricultural produce for loading and unloading, was covered by the trailer’s “Agricultural Liability Only” policy, rather than being a gratuitous passenger.

2. Whether the trailer’s insurer could be held liable where the Tribunal found that the accident was caused by the tractor driver’s negligence and no negligence was attributed to the trailer.

The appellant invoked Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arguing that an insurer was not required to cover a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods-carrying vehicle.

Its reasoning treats policy coverage as turning on the claimant’s connection with the vehicle’s agricultural use: a labourer accompanying agricultural produce for loading and unloading was not, on the facts found, a gratuitous passenger.

The Court also declined appellate interference because the appellant had not shown that the Tribunal’s finding was perverse, illegal, or affected by an error of law.

The evidence supported the finding that the claimant was travelling with the jute and jute sticks in his capacity as a labourer engaged in loading and unloading them; that evidence had not been materially shaken, and there was no evidence that he was an unrelated passenger.

The Court therefore accepted that his presence was connected with the trailer’s agricultural use and rejected the insurer’s contention that his risk was outside the policy.

Although the immediate cause of the accident was the tractor driver’s negligence, the Court considered that this did not determine the separate question of whether the claimant’s risk was covered by the trailer’s policy. It found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s equal apportionment of liability between the insurers.

The statutory deposit, if any, was ordered to be returned, and the records were directed to be sent back to the Tribunal.