An agricultural labourer accompanying produce in a trailer is covered under its agricultural liability policy.

On 14 September 2010, the claimant was travelling as a labourer in a trailer carrying jute and jute sticks, attached to a tractor.

The tractor struck an electric post, causing a live wire to fall on the vehicles.

The claimant sustained serious injuries, including the amputation of both legs below the knees, and was assessed as having 80% disability

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him Rs. 8,45,000 with 6% annual interest, holding the tractor’s and trailer’s insurers liable in equal proportions.

United India Insurance Company, the trailer’s insurer, appealed against the finding of its liability

Whether the claimant, travelling in the trailer as a labourer accompanying agricultural produce for loading and unloading, was covered under the trailer’s “Agricultural Liability Only” policy or was an uncovered gratuitous passenger

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 judgment does not identify or apply a specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis of its decision. The appellant relied on Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arguing that an insurer was not required to cover a gratuitous passenger in a goods-carrying vehicle; however, the Court resolved the appeal on the evidence and the terms and purpose of the agricultural liability policy

It held that a labourer travelling with agricultural produce for the purpose of loading and unloading, whose presence is connected with the agricultural use of the vehicle, is not to be treated as a gratuitous passenger in the circumstances of this case

The claimant’s and an eyewitness’s evidence that he was travelling in the trailer as a labourer with the jute and jute sticks, and was engaged in loading and unloading them, was not materially shaken in cross-examination.

The Court therefore accepted the Tribunal’s finding that the claimant’s presence was connected with the trailer’s agricultural use and rejected the insurer’s contention that he was a gratuitous passenger

Although the Tribunal attributed the immediate cause of the accident to the tractor driver, the Court considered that this did not resolve whether the claimant’s risk was covered under the separately insured trailer’s policy.

The insurer had not shown that the Tribunal’s coverage finding was perverse or legally erroneous

It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the award requiring the tractor’s and trailer’s insurers to pay compensation in equal proportions, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

Any statutory deposit was ordered to be returned