A tractor pulling a loaded trolley swings out of a field gate onto the highway. A JCB rumbles down a village road on its way to a construction site. To most of us these are not really "traffic" — they are farm and work machines. But when one of them hits a motorcycle, knocks down a pedestrian, or overturns with people on the trolley, the injury is just as real as any car crash, and often worse. And then the family discovers something they never expected: the insurance company is refusing to pay, saying the vehicle was "insured only for agricultural purposes".
This article explains, in plain language, how insurance works for tractors, trolleys and JCBs, when an "agricultural use" limit can actually be used by the insurer to escape, and when — far more often than people think — the insurer still has to pay.
Why Tractors and JCBs Feel Different — But Are Still Motor Vehicles
The first myth to clear is that a tractor or a JCB is somehow outside the law because it is a "farm machine" or a "site machine". It is not. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines a "motor vehicle" very widely — any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use on roads. The only things carved out are vehicles running on fixed rails and special machines used only inside a factory or enclosed premises. The moment a tractor or a JCB is being used on a public road, it is a motor vehicle, and the whole machinery of accident compensation applies to it.
That means an accident caused by a tractor or JCB on the road can be taken to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal exactly like a car or bus accident. The injured person, or the family of someone killed, can claim compensation against the driver, the owner and the insurer. The fact that the offending vehicle was a tractor-trolley or an earth mover does not shut the door — it simply raises some special arguments, which is what the rest of this article is about.
What "Insured for Agricultural Purposes Only" Actually Means
Tractors are often insured under a policy that covers their use for agricultural purposes — ploughing, carrying produce, farm work — at a lower premium. The logic is that a tractor used purely on farms carries a smaller road risk than one running commercially on highways.
When an accident happens, insurers reach for this clause. They argue the tractor was being used for something other than agriculture — carrying commercial goods, ferrying passengers, hauling material for a builder — and therefore the policy was breached and they owe nothing.
Sometimes this argument is genuine. The source material shows a case where a tractor-trolley insured for agricultural purposes was being used to transport passengers when it met with an accident and a school student died; because the terms of the insurance contract were violated, the insurance company was held not liable. Similarly, where a tractor insured for agricultural purposes was being used to bring material for a commercial purpose, the breach was real. So "agricultural use only" is not meaningless — misuse can cost the cover.
But — and this is the part insurers do not advertise — the defence works far less often than they would like you to believe.
When the Insurer Still Has to Pay Despite the "Agricultural" Clause
The source material is full of situations where the insurer raised the "agricultural purpose" line and lost. A few patterns are worth knowing.
The insurer must prove the misuse — and prove it with evidence. Courts have repeatedly refused to let insurers escape on a bare assertion. In one case the insurer alleged a tractor was being used to carry passengers in breach of policy terms but failed to file the policy to establish its case; the cover note produced did not contain all the conditions, and the insurer was not exempted from liability. The burden is on the insurer, and a vague claim is not enough.
A trolley attached to the tractor is not, by itself, a breach. In a case where a tractor was insured under a comprehensive policy for agricultural purpose and the attached trolley was not separately insured, the court held that mere attachment of a trolley with the tractor does not amount to a violation of the terms of the policy, and the insurance company was liable.
Two policies, one condition — the unconditional policy answers. Where a tractor and trailer that injured a cyclist were covered by two policies, one restricting use to agriculture and one with no such condition, the court held the insurer under the unconditional policy could not avoid paying.
Carrying farm labourers in the trolley is still agricultural use. Where a tractor was carrying agricultural labourers in the trolley drawn by it, the source material is clear that the insurance company cannot escape liability to pay compensation or to indemnify the owner.
What About a JCB or Earth Mover?
A JCB and similar earth-moving machines sit in the same broad category — if it is mechanically propelled and used on a public road, it is a motor vehicle under the Act, and an accident it causes on the road is a motor accident claim. The carve-out for "special type" machines applies only where the machine is used solely inside a factory or enclosed premises. A JCB travelling on a public road, or working at a site reached by public road, does not get that exemption.
The source material also draws useful lines between machines that carry goods and machines that only lift or handle them — for instance, it treats a forklift as not a "goods vehicle" because it only lifts goods rather than carrying them from one place to another, while a dumper adapted to carry goods is a goods vehicle. These classifications affect which exact insurance limits apply, but they do not change the basic point: an injury caused by such a machine on a public road is claimable before the Tribunal. The right classification of the machine and its policy is something to work out with a lawyer, because it decides how much the insurer must pay and under which head.
The Other Favourite Defence: "The Driver Had No Licence to Drive a Tractor"
Alongside "agricultural use", insurers love the licence argument. They say the person driving the tractor only had a licence for a car or scooter, or only a learner's licence, or "tractor only" endorsement while driving something else — and therefore the policy was breached.
Here too the source material shows the defence is hard to run. The burden of proving that the offending vehicle was driven by a person with no valid licence lies squarely on the insurer. Courts have held that claimants are not expected to prove a negative; where the insurer alleged the tractor driver had no valid licence but did not adduce evidence to support its contention, the insurer was not exonerated. In several cases the insurer simply failed to summon the driver's records from the licensing authority and was held liable for that failure.
And even where a licence problem is genuine, there is the "pay and recover" route. Courts can direct the insurer to pay the injured victim first and then recover the amount from the owner. The victim is not left waiting while the owner and insurer fight. If the accident has also led to a police case against the tractor driver, that is a separate track — knowing your position when there is an FIR against the driver helps, but it should not delay your compensation claim.
Who Should the Injured Person Claim Against?
The answer is: everyone connected to the offending vehicle. The Motor Vehicles Act defines the "owner" as the person in whose name the vehicle is registered, and where it is under a lease or hire-purchase, the person in possession under that agreement. So a claim can name the registered owner of the tractor or JCB, anyone running it under a lease or hire arrangement, the driver, and the insurer.
You do not need to work out, on day one, exactly whose fault it was or which party ultimately pays. You implead all of them and let the Tribunal decide. This matters especially with tractors and JCBs because they are often borrowed, hired out for a season, run by a contractor, or used by someone other than the registered owner. If you only chase one person, you may chase the wrong one. Naming all of them protects you.
Also keep in mind that if the vehicle was sold and the new owner did not get the insurance transferred, the law has a deeming provision: the certificate of insurance and the policy are treated as transferred to the new owner from the date of transfer of the vehicle. This stops an insurer from escaping just because the paperwork lagged behind the sale.
What Should I Actually Do Now?
If you or a family member has been hurt in a tractor, trolley or JCB accident, here is a practical sequence.
- Get medical treatment first and preserve every record. Bills, prescriptions, scans, the discharge summary and the doctor's note on any permanent disability are the foundation of your claim.
- Make sure the accident is reported to the police. A police record, and an FIR where there was rash or negligent driving, fixes the basic facts. Note the registration number of the tractor or JCB, even if it is dusty or half-visible.
- Do not accept "it's only a farm vehicle, nothing can be done". A tractor or JCB on a public road is a motor vehicle, and a Tribunal claim is fully available.
- Get the vehicle's papers if you can. The registration certificate, the insurance policy and the permit reveal the owner, the insurer and exactly what the policy covers — which is what an "agricultural use" defence stands or falls on.
- Treat the insurer's refusal as an argument, not a verdict. "Insured for agriculture only" or "driver had no licence" must be proved by the insurer with documents. Very often they cannot.
- Name every connected party in the claim. The driver, the registered owner, the contractor or hirer in possession, and the insurer — all of them.
- File before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. This is the dedicated forum; you can ask for interim relief in appropriate cases if treatment costs are mounting.
- Take legal advice early. The classification of the machine and its policy, and the strength of the insurer's defence, are technical points where early guidance changes the outcome.
Where Pinaka Legal Fits In
The hardest part of a tractor or JCB claim is rarely proving the accident — it is dismantling the insurer's "agricultural use" or "no licence" defence. At Pinaka Legal, our team helps injured people and bereaved families obtain the vehicle and policy documents, test whether the insurer's refusal can actually survive the burden of proof the law places on it, and present a claim before the Tribunal against every answerable party. If an insurer has told you the policy does not cover you, that statement deserves to be checked, not simply believed.
A Farm Machine on the Road Is Still on the Road
The instinct that a tractor or a JCB is somehow "not a real vehicle" is exactly what insurers rely on. The law does not share that instinct. Once these machines roll onto a public road, they carry the same responsibility as any other vehicle, and the injured person has the same right to compensation. The "agricultural purpose" clause is real, but it is narrow, and the insurer has to prove the misuse — it cannot simply announce it. A trolley on a tractor is not a breach. Farm labourers in the trolley are not a breach. A second, unconditional policy answers. And where there is a genuine problem, the victim is still paid first. Knowing all this turns a flat "no" from an insurer back into what it really is: a position to be challenged.
Written by the Pinaka Legal Editorial Team. For queries, call +91 8595704798 or email info@pinakalegal.com.
Frequently Asked Questions
A tractor hit me on the road. Can I claim compensation even though it is a farm vehicle?
Yes. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, any mechanically propelled vehicle used on a public road is a motor vehicle. A tractor or trolley used on a road is fully within that definition, so an accident it causes is a motor accident claim. You can claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the driver, the owner and the insurer, exactly as you would for a car.
The insurer says the tractor was 'insured for agricultural purposes only' and refuses to pay. Is that the end?
No. It is an argument the insurer must prove with evidence, including by producing the policy itself. Courts have repeatedly refused to let insurers escape on a bare claim of misuse. Even where misuse is genuine, the defence is narrow. Treat the refusal as a position to be challenged, not a final verdict.
The tractor had a trolley attached. Does that break the insurance cover?
Not by itself. The source material shows a case where a tractor was insured under a comprehensive policy for agricultural purpose and the attached trolley was not separately insured — the court held that mere attachment of a trolley does not amount to a violation of the policy terms, and the insurer was held liable.
The tractor was carrying farm labourers in the trolley when the accident happened. Does the insurer still pay?
Yes. Where a tractor was carrying agricultural labourers in the trolley drawn by it, the position is that the insurance company cannot escape liability to pay compensation or to indemnify the owner. Carrying farm labourers in connection with farm work is consistent with agricultural use, not a breach of it.
When does the 'agricultural use only' defence actually work for the insurer?
When there is genuine misuse. The source material shows the defence succeeding where a tractor-trolley insured for agricultural purposes was being used to transport passengers and a student died, and where a tractor was being used to bring material for a commercial purpose. Real, proven misuse of the kind the policy excludes can cost the cover.
Does the same law apply to a JCB or earth mover?
Broadly yes. A JCB is mechanically propelled, and when used on a public road it is a motor vehicle under the Act. The exemption for 'special type' machines applies only where the machine is used solely inside a factory or enclosed premises. A JCB on a public road does not get that exemption, so an accident it causes is claimable before the Tribunal.
The insurer says the tractor driver did not have a proper licence. Can it refuse on that ground?
Only if it proves it. The burden of showing the driver had no valid licence lies on the insurer, and claimants are not expected to prove a negative. Courts have held insurers liable where they alleged a licence defect but failed to bring evidence or summon the licensing records. And even with a genuine licence problem, the insurer can be made to pay first and recover later.
What is 'pay and recover' and how does it help me?
It is a route courts use where the insurer has a genuine defence against the owner — such as a licence breach — but the victim is still an innocent third party. The Tribunal directs the insurer to pay the injured victim first, and then lets the insurer recover that amount from the owner. You are not left waiting while the owner and insurer fight it out.
Who should I name in a tractor or JCB accident claim?
Everyone connected to the offending vehicle — the driver, the registered owner, anyone running it under a lease or hire-purchase arrangement, and the insurer. Tractors and JCBs are often borrowed, hired out or run by contractors, so naming only one party risks chasing the wrong one. Implead all of them and let the Tribunal decide who ultimately pays.
The tractor was sold but the insurance was never transferred to the new owner. Can the insurer escape?
Generally no. The law has a deeming provision under which the certificate of insurance and the policy are treated as transferred to the new owner from the date the vehicle is transferred. This prevents an insurer from escaping merely because the paperwork lagged behind the sale of the tractor.
Can I get money for treatment while the tractor accident claim is still pending?
In appropriate cases, yes. The law allows the Tribunal to grant interim relief so that a family is not crushed by treatment costs while the full claim is being decided. If the immediate financial pressure is severe, ask your lawyer to seek an interim award.
Where do I file a tractor or JCB road accident compensation claim?
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the dedicated forum for accident compensation. The civil court's jurisdiction over such claims is barred. You can implead the driver, owner, hirer in possession and insurer together in one claim, and the Tribunal decides liability and the amount.
For more articles on Indian law, visit the Pinaka Legal Blog.