DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

(1.) This appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kullu (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 56 of 2000, decided on 1.3.2002 whereby he has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants.

(2.) The claimants are the widow, minor children and mother of late Shayam Lal. They filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. In this claim petition it was alleged that on 31.12.1998 Shayam Lal was engaged as a helper by Gian Chand, respondent No. 4, for cutting and carriage of timber in tractor-trolley bearing No. HP-34 1051. It is alleged that the said tractor-trolley was hired by respondent No. 4 from its owner, respondent No. 1 and that Sunil Kumar, respondent No. 2, was the driver of the said tractor. It was further alleged that the respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner suddenly applied the brakes as a result of which Shayam Lal fell down from the running vehicle between its tractor and trolley and due to such fall the tyres of the trolley passed over him and he died on the spot.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed a joint reply. They denied that the accident had taken place in the manner mentioned. According to them the deceased was not travelling in the tractor-trolley. They also took up the plea that the deceased was never engaged as a helper. According to the defence raised the deceased was drunk and he attempted to climb on to the trolley of the tractor from the back and fell down and died. The insurance company took up the plea that the deceased was travelling as an unauthorised passenger in the tractor and as such it was not liable.

(4.) The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence led before it has come to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove that the deceased died as a result of a fall from the tractor and had failed to prove negligence on the part of Sunil Kumar. The claim petition was accordingly dismissed.

(5.) The first question to be decided is, how and in what manner the accident occurred. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased did die as a result of a fall from the tractor. The version of the claimants is that he was working as a helper and sitting in the tractor as a labourer and due to sudden application of brakes, there was a jerk as a result of which he fell down and died. On the other hand, the stand of the owner and driver is that the deceased himself tried to board the tractor and fell down. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R. In the post-mortem report proved by Dr. Mohan Lal, PW 2, there is no mention of any tyre marks on the body of deceased. The learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that since the case set up in the claim petition was that the deceased was crushed under the tyres of the tractor and there were no tyre marks and as such the version of the claimants could not be said to be proved. Learned Tribunal also relied upon the fact that though the post-mortem was conducted on the date of the accident, no F.I.R. was lodged and, therefore, it suggests that the accident had taken place because of the negligence of the deceased himself and not due to negligent act of the driver.

(6.) The approach of the learned Tribunal to say the least is hyper-technical. One cannot loose sight of the fact that claimants are normally not on the spot when the accident occurs. They have to rely upon the information given by others to show how the accident occurred. The F.I.R. in question was lodged on 11.1.1999, about 12 days after the accident under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No. 2. The learned Tribunal has totally ignored the evidence of Mohar Singh, PW 4. He has stated that on 31.12.1998 he, Medh Ram, Hira Lal, Madan Lal and Shayam Lal deceased had gone to do the work of cutting of timber belonging to respondent No. 4. He further states that timber was being carried in tractor No. HP-34 1051. They were all sitting on the tractor and when the tractor reached near house of Gian Pandit, respondent No. 4, the driver suddenly applied the brakes to the tractor as a result of which Shayam Lal fell down and came under the tractor. He died as a result of the injuries suffered by him. He has been cross-examined at length. However, nothing has been extracted from him to show that his statement is incorrect or false. The suggestion put to him is that Shayam Lal tried to climb on to the rear of the tractor and fell down. In cross-examination by insurance company, he has clearly admitted that Shayam Lal was already travelling in the tractor and he had witnessed the accident. No evidence was led by the owner or driver.

(7.) The Supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., 1977 ACJ 343 (SC), held as follows:

"(6) The normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident 'speaks for itself or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence."

(8.) In the present case also the claimants were not on the spot. They produced Mohar Singh who was an eyewitness. The respondents had not denied the fact that Shayam Lal had died as a result of accident involving the tractor. Their case was that he himself was responsible for his death since he had tried to climb on to the running tractor. Further, their case was that Shayam Lal had not been employed with Gian Chand, respondent No. 4. Neither Gian Chand, the person with whom the deceased was stated to be employed, nor Sunil Kumar, driver of the tractor appeared in the witness-box. As such, an adverse inference has to be drawn against them. Sunil Kumar was the best person to have explained under what circumstances the accident occurred. Four other persons had been named by Mohar Singh, PW 4, to be travelling in the tractor-trolley. None of these persons were examined by the respondents. The fact that Shayam Lal died as a result of an accident with the tractor is not denied. In fact this fact is admitted, though the cause of accident put forth is different. In my view non-examination of the driver of the tractor and Gian Chand is fatal to the case of the respondents.

(9.) It may be that Shayam Lal may not have been crushed under the tyres. This, at best is what can be derived from the post-mortem report and the statement of PW 2. However, the fact which stands proved on record is that he died as a result of a fall from the tractor. It was for the driver to have explained how Shayam Lal fell down. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Mohar Singh, PW 4, that Sunil Kumar had suddenly applied the brakes as a result of which Shayam Lal had fallen and died. It is also clear that respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 set up a false story since they realized that the insurance company could not be made liable and the liability, if any, would be of the owner and driver.

(10.) In my view the award of the learned Tribunal is, therefore, liable to be set aside and it is held that Shayam Lal died due to fall from the tractor-trolley which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Sunil Kumar.

(11.) With regard to quantum, it stands proved that the deceased was a labourer. Accident occurred in 1998 and it would be reasonable to assume the income of a labourer at Rs. 100 per day. However, a labourer does not get work on all 30 days in a month and, therefore, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 2,400 per month. After deducting Rs. 600 for his personal expenses the dependency of the family works out to Rs. 1,800 per month or Rs. 21,600 per year. The deceased was only aged 26 years at the time of his death and has left behind a young widow, two minor children and mother. It would be appropriate to apply multiplier of 18 and, therefore, the loss of dependency works out to Rs. 3,88,800. The claimants are also held entitled to Rs. 11,200 on account of funeral expenses and conventional damages. The widow is also held entitled to Rs. 10,000 for the loss of consortium. The claimants are thus entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 4,10,000. The claimants are also held entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum w.e.f. 20/9/2000, the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit/payment. Amount is apportioned as follows:

(1) Sita Devi, widow

Rs.?? 1,50,000

(2) Kamal Nath, minor son

Rs.? ?1,00,000

(3) Kumari Yojna, minor daughter

Rs.? 1,00,000

(4) Sevati Devi, mother

Rs.???? 60,000

(12.) The next question which arises is as to who is liable to pay the amount of compensation. As proved on record, the deceased was sitting on the tractor and was a passenger in the tractor. The policy of insurance of the vehicle is Exh. RA. In this policy there is no coverage for any passenger. The only coverage is for third party loss and for one driver. The registration certificate of the vehicle on record is Exh. RB. It clearly shows that the vehicle was a tractor and the seating capacity of the same including the driver was one. As such from these documents it is clear that only the driver was supposed to sit on the tractor and no passenger could be carried on the tractor.

(13.) A tractor is not a goods vehicle. Section 2 (44) defines 'tractor' as under:

"'tractor' means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller."

(14.) It is, thus, clear that a tractor is not meant to carry any passenger or to carry any load. A trailer has been defined in section 2 (46) as under:

"'trailer' means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle."

(15.) When a trailer is attached to the tractor, the trailer can be used for carriage of goods. However, the trailer cannot be used for carriage of passengers. The question whether the tractor becomes a goods vehicle when a trailer has been attached to it has been left open by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 ACJ 1909 (SC). The Apex Court considered these questions and held as follows:

"(15) A tractor fitted with a trailer may or may not answer the definition of 'goods carriage' contained in section 2 (14) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The tractor was meant to be used for agricultural purposes. The trailer attached to the tractor, thus, necessarily is required to be used for agricultural purposes, unless registered otherwise. It may be, as has been contended by Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, that carriage of vegetables being agricultural produce would lead to an inference that the tractor was being used for agricultural purposes but the same by itself would not be construed to mean that the tractor and trailer can be used for carriage of goods by another person

for his business activities. The deceased was a businessman. He used to deal in vegetables. After he purchased the vegetables, he was to transport the same to market for the purpose of sale thereof and not for any agricultural purpose. Tractor and trailer, therefore, were not being used for agricultural purposes. However, even if it be assumed that the trailer would answer the description of the 'goods carriage' as contained in section 2 (14) of Motor Vehicles Act, the case would be covered by the decision of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and other decisions following the same, as the accident had taken place on 24.11.1991, i.e., much prior to coming into force of 1994 amendment." (16.) In view of the above law it is clear that no person other than the driver could travel on the tractor. There was no insurance coverage for any passenger and hence the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. (17.) In view of the above discussion the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs and the claimants are held entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,10,000 with interest, as aforesaid. Dharambir, Sunil and Gian Chand, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, are held jointly and severally liable to pay this amount. Appeal allowed.