The foregoing observations of the Supreme Court in Natwar Parikh’s case (supra) are made in the context of the use of the tractortrailer/trolley and for the proposes of fixation of liability towards tax. More so, in the facts and circumstances of that case. Suffice to say, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in the instant case is with regard to the use of the insured tractor, for the claim(s) of compensation to the victim(s), as provided for under Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicle Act. During the course of hearing, on being queried, the learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that the insured tractor was a light motor vehicle. The learned counsel also does not dispute the fact that the insured tractor, which is primarily to be used in the fields, can also be run on the roads even when attached with a trolley. It can't be equally comprehended that the insured tractor, when attached with a trolly, would lose the character of an LMV and the licence of the driver for LMV-NT i.e. for non transport, be invalid. On the mere fact that at the time of accident, the trolley attached to the insured tractor was laden with sand, an inference cannot be drawn that it was meant for commercial purpose. Can’t the sand be utilized for agricultural purposes or personal use? Be that as it may, the fact remains that the rash and negligent driving of the insured tractor is not in dispute and, in the considered opinion of the court, the trolley laden with sand attached to it, ipso facto, cannot change the character of the insured tractor nor can it be said that the driver was not driving with a valid licence. It is also not the case of the insurer-the appellant that the insured tractor, under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, could not be
