( 1 ) THE Claims Tribunal in all these appeals following the decision of this Court in channappa v. Laxman (1) has granted compensation to the claimants on the ground that there was rash and negligent driving by the driver of a goods vehicle in which the concerned persons were travelling with their goods on payment of hire charges. The Insurance Company has challenged the awards of the Tribunal on the ground that the decisions of this Court do not speak with one voice on the liability to pay compensation in such cases and the matter, therefore, requires a second look. Sri Narayan, counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention has referred us to the decisions of this Court, Mohuddnsab v. Ronidas Han (2) and Suit. Radhahai govindrao v. P. Krishaamurth v (3 ). We have perused these two decisions. But we are unable to agree with the contention urged. The facts in Mohiddinsab's case do not lie in parallel with the facts in channappa's (2) case. The claimant therein was gratuituous traveller and did not pay any charge for the luggage entrusted to the goods vehicle. On that finding the owner himself was held not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the question of inde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document