The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the claimant's status as an employee of the owner of the vehicle and the consequent liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

R.K. GAUBA, J.

1. Harish Chand Anand (the first respondent herein) had filed the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal), which registered it as Suit No. 67/2003, seeking compensation for injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 21.8.99 around midnight while travelling in motor vehicle bearing registration No. HR 38C 4790 (hereinafter the offending vehicle).

2. The case as presented by the first respondent before the tribunal was that the offending vehicle was owned by Bhagat Ram (the second respondent herein) and was driven in a rash/negligent manner at the time of accident by Agya Ram @ Teja (the third respondent herein). The offending vehicle concededly was insured against the third party risk for the period in question, with the appellant insurance company, it having been impleaded before the tribunal as party respondent No.3.

During the inquiry, the insurance company, inter alia, pleaded that the first respondent (the claimant) was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle and since the vehicle was a goods transport vehicle, the insurance company could not be held liable. Noticeably, the claimant had claimed to be the representative of the owner of the vehicle which fact was disputed by the latter. The defence taken by the insurance company referred to the said denial of the status by the insured to seek to be absolved.

3. The tribunal, upon inquiry, found that the claimant was entitled to the compensation of Rs.4,24,400/- which was granted along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the petition. The contention of the insurance company to above effect was rejected and it was called upon to indemnify the insured.

4. The insurance company brought this appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act contending that since the claimant had claimed to be an employee of the owner he could not be covered under the insurance policy and would be entitled to claim compensation only under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (now known as Employees Compensation Act, 1923).

5. The learned Single Judge of this Court while hearing on the appeal by order dated 5.3.2009 took note of the contention of the insurance company in appeal that the liability of the insurance company must be restricted to Rs.2,17,644/- which would be the amount of compensation payable in view of the disability certified to the extent of 75%. It was further submitted at that stage that the learned tribunal had fallen into error by treating the disability affecting the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 100%. For some reasons, the matter kept getting adjourned before it reached the stage of hearing yet again on 23.3.2015 when it was submitted on behalf of the appellant insurance company that the question for consideration essentially is as to whether the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as an owner of the goods or representative of the owner of goods or as an employee who is entitled to compensation and would be governed by the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

6. Before coming to the contentions raised in this appeal, it needs to be noted that the first respondent (the claimant) has generally shown dis-interest in assistance in the hearing on the appeal at hand. Notices were issued by order dated 11.08.2004 to all the three respondents in appeal which include the driver, the owner, and the claimant. The claimant appeared for the first time through counsel on 4.5.2005 and thereafter has appeared or not appeared as per own convenience. The second respondent (the owner of the vehicle or the person insured) appeared in response to the notice on 4.5.2005 and after participating in the proceedings on some of the subsequent dates, and similarly appeared or not appeared as per own choice or convenience. The third respondent (the driver) was served on 23.8.2006 but chose not to appear at all.

7. The appeal has c