JUDGMENT :

1. The insurance company has disputed its liability to pay the compensation determined in M.A.C.P. No. 324/2004 by the M.A.C.T., Jalna.

2. Heard Mr Swapnil Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr Swapnil Mule holding for Mr R.V. Gore, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr B.R. Kedar, learned counsel for respondent No. 8.

3. Mr Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company invited my attention to the impugned Judgment passed by the Tribunal. He submitted that the deceased was travelling in a tipper bearing registration No. MH 10 A 6700 as a cleaner. The tipper was insured with the appellant. It was a ‘Act policy’ and thereby covering third party risk. He invited my attention to the insurance policy of the vehicle (tipper) vide Exh. 37. He pointed out that schedule of premium and submitted that risk of the cleaner is not covered. The Tribunal has committed grave error in fastening the liability on appellant/insurance company jointly and severally with the owner of the vehicle. He submitted that the appellant/insurance company needs to be abso