Suresh Kait, J.

1. Instant appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 01.04.2010, whereby appellant has been held responsible to pay compensation amount, consequently, directed to pay said amount in favour of the respondents / claimants.

2. The sole ground of challenge in this petition is that the deceased, who had loaded the cement in the offending vehicle, sustained fatal injuries while travelling in the offending vehicle for the delivery of the cement at the place of owner, was not a representative of owner of the goods.

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted, PW1, son of the deceased admitted that deceased was a labourer. He did not state that the deceased was the owner or representative of the owner of the goods. PW2 Hare Ram has also deposed that deceased had loaded the cement bags on the truck and the truck was to be unloaded by the labourers but did not state the deceased to be the owner or the representative of the owner of the goods.

4. Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the deceased was a gratuitous labourer, the owner of the offending vehicle has breached the terms of the insurance policy. Therefore, the appellant / insurance company is not liable to pay any amount in favour of the respondents / claimants.

5. Facts of the case are that on 25.06.2008, early morning, deceased along with other labourers loaded cement bags on the truck No. DL-1LC-9695 from cement siding Shakur Basti, Delhi for being delivered to Shahdra. All of the labourers boarded the truck for delivery. At about 7.30 AM when the truck was being driven on outer Ring Road, Burari at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, the driver lost control and the truck overturned, due to which all the occupants including the deceased fell down. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot itself. Therefore, vide FIR no. 317/2008, Ex.PW1/3, a case was registered against respondent no. 3 at Police Station – Timar Pur for the offences punishable under Sections 279/339/304A IPC on the statement of PW2 Hare Ram Das.

6. The appellant in its written statement filed before the Tribunal, admitted that on the date of accident, the offending truck stood duly insured with them. It is further admitted, at the time of accident, the offending truck was being used for carriage of gratuitous passengers, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Ld. Tribunal has recorded in its impugned award dated 01.04.2010 that owner of the truck (respondent no. 8 herein) in her written statement has pleaded that no accident took place with her vehicle and the truck in question has been falsely implicated in this case. Driver of the offending truck (respondent no. 9 herein) in his written statement admitted that accident took place with the offending truck, however, pleaded that the cause of accident was on the negligence of the deceased, who lost balance and fell down from the running truck and sustained injuries.

8. Ld. Tribunal has framed two issues. Issue no. 1 is relevant to adjudicate the instant appeal, which is as under:

“Whether the deceased Devo Tanti @ Debu Dass died because of the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 25.06.2008 because of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. Tata truck bearing no. DL-1LC-9695 by the respondent no. 1?”

9. Respondent no. 2 appeared in witness box as PW1, who placed the relevant records Ex.PW1/1 and also admitted that he was not the eye witness of the accident.

10. PW2 Hare Ram Dass, one of the labourers who claimed to be the eye witness of the accident was travelling with the deceased in the offending vehicle at the time of accident has deposed that on morning of 25.06.2008, six persons including himself and deceased had loaded cement bags on the offending truck for being transported to Shahdra. All of those six persons boarded the offending truck so that the cement could be unloaded by them in Shahdra. He further deposed tha