Kishori vs Gulabkhan and Others

R.K. Verma, J.—This is an appeal filed by the owner of the truck bearing registration No. MTS 6911 directed against the award dated 5.10.1983 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Nimar, Mandleshar, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 26 of 1982, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 36,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum in favour of the claimant-Respondents Gulabkhan and Shakuranbi in respect of the death of their son Raiskhan aged about 22 years, who died as a result of the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck by its driver Saleem.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated; are as follows:

On 23.11.1981, the date of the accident, the offending truck in question in respect of which the Appellant is the owner and Respondent No. 4 is the insurer, carrying 200 bags of chemical fertilizer from Sendhwa to Pansemal, was being driven by driver Saleem in the course of employment of the Appellant. When the truck approached Bomaniya Nala, it turned turtle and the deceased Raiskhan who was going on the truck as a labourer engaged on behalf of the owner of the truck for loading and unloading the truck, came underneath the truck, got crushed and died as a result of that accident On the claim petition having been filed by the claimants who are the parents of the deceased Raiskhan, the learned Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, found that the deceased Raiskhan died as a result of the accident caused by overturning of the truck due to rash and negligent driving by its driver Saleem. The learned Tribunal estimated that the monthly earning of the deceased Raiskhan to be Rs. 300/- and found that he was a youngman aged about 22 years. An amount of Rs. 36,000/- has been assessed as the compensation payable to the claimant-parents of the deceased by the learned Tribunal. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant-parents are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 36,000/- , together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation subject to the condition that if the compensation amount was deposited by 30.11.1983, the rate of interest payable would be only 6 per cent per annum. Being aggrieved by the award, the Appellant-truck-owner has filed this appeal. The insurance company, on the other hand, has filed the connected appeal M.A. No. 14 of 1984 disputing its liability to pay the compensation amount.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that it has not been proved that the deceased Raiskhan was engaged as a labourer to load and unload the truck. It is pointed out that the deceased was picked up by the driver on the way. This contention of the Learned Counsel has no foundation on the pleadings of the parties and has no substance. There is evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was carried on the truck for the purpose of unloading the fertilizer bags carried in the truck.

No other point has been argued.

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that no interference in the award of the learned Tribunal is called for.

As regards the connected appeal No. M.A 14 of 1984, the Learned Counsel for the insurance company has submitted that the deceased Raiskhan was a friend of the driver of the truck in question and was travelling as a gratuitous passenger on the truck and as such the insurance company could not be held liable.

As pointed out above, I have already come to the conclusion that deceased Raiskhan was a labourer engaged for loading and unloading the goods and as such the insurance company cannot escape from its liability under the insurance policy.

The deceased being a labourer employed for the work of loading and unloading on the truck, there was a statutory requirement for the insurance policy to cover the liability of the truck owner arising under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the death of the deceased employee. The insurance policy (Exh. D/l) filed in the case discloses that a premium of Rs. 24/- was paid in respect of two drivers and one cleaner while the rate of premium as per endorsement No. 16 annexed to the policy was Rs. 5/- per driver and/or cleaner and/or persons employed in loading-unloading. The amount of Rs. 24/- paid as premium in respect of the two drivers and one cleaner was in excess by Rs. 9/- . The excess amount of Rs. 9/- , it is contended by the Learned Counsel for the claimants, would compulsorily cover the risk in respect of the deceased who was employed as a labourer. It is also submitted that the liability of the insured is not limited to the amount of compensation payable under the provisions of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, as has been held by a decision of this Court in The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Agra and Another Vs. Dhanno and Others, . It is, therefore, contended that the amount of compensation of Rs. 36,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal is justified and cannot be validly challenged by the insurance company. The contention of the Learned Counsel, in my opinion, must be upheld. The compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, therefore, does not call for any interference.

In the result, this appeal as also Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 1984 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gulabkhan) fail and are hereby dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs of both these appeals which shall be borne by the parties as incurred.