1. This is an appeal by Insurance Company i.e. the Ori.respondent no.3.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal can be narrated as follows -

3. The claimants/respondents are the heirs of deceased Dashrath Patle. They were solely dependent on him. Deceased Dashrath was 16 years old boy and was earning Rs.20/- per day by working as Hamal (coolie). On the date of the incident, he was working as a coolie on a Tractor owned by original respondent no.2 Laxman Baghale. The said Tractor was being driven by original respondent no.1 Sahasram. At the material time, the deceased was travelling in the said tractor, which was carrying building material etc. The driver was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently, as a result of which the Trolly got detached from the Tractor. As a result of that, the Tractor met with an accident. Dashrath suffered injuries of which he died. The claimants, therefore, claimed compensation.

4. Respondent nos.1 and 2 though duly served did not file any written statement. The application was opposed by original respondent no.3 . Insurance Company i.e. the present appellant. The respondent denied that the monthly income of deceased was Rs.600/- per month and the applicants were dependent on him. The main contention of the respondent is that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle in breach of the conditions of the policy. It is also contended that the policy covers the driver of the Tractor alone and none else and in view of this the Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse the claim.

5. On these pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues and found that the deceased had died of rash and negligent driving and all respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Being aggrieved by that, this appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no.3 . Insurance Company.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant . Insurance Company and the respondents.

7. The only point that was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore, not covered by the policy and therefore no liability could be fastened on it. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased was travelling as a coolie and therefore not a gratuitous and unauthorised passenger. Mr.Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, also submitted that the appellant be allowed to recover the amount from the owner,, since the appellant . Insurance Company is not at all liable since the deceased was the unauthorised passenger in the tractor.

8. Following points, therefore, arise for my consideration and I have recorded my findings.

i) Whether the deceased was an authorised passenger in breach of condition of Policy ? .. ... Yes.

ii) Whether the Insurance Company can be allowed to recover the compensation paid by it to the claimants from the owner - ori. respondent no.2 ? .. ...... .. Yes.

2. What order ? .. .... As per final order. –

R E A S O N S -

9. Mr.Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that deceased should be treated an unauthorised and gratuitous passenger because of the fact that he was travelling in a Tractor which is essentially a goods vehicle and is a person who is not covered by the policy of Insurance. The Policy (Exh.39) shows that driver of the tractor alone is covered by the policy. Since there was no insurance with regard to the coolies, it must follow that the deceased was an authorised passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. He was certainly not a fare paying passenger also. For all purposes, therefore, to my mind, he has to be treated as a gratuitous passenger.

10. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that under the above circumstances the Insurance Company is to be exonerated. In a recent decision, reported in 200