( 1 ) ORIENTAL Insurance co. Ltd. , the opposite party No. 3 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, has preferred this appeal against the award dated 3. 9. 85 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Palanpur, awarding a compensation of Rs. 18,000 together with interest at the rate of 16 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realisation with proportionate costs against the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: on 11. 6. 1982, the accident occurred at 6. 16 a. m. on Deesa-Tharad Road in which two trucks were involved, one was truck no. RRG 5902 which was coming from badmer and going to Palanpur. The other truck No. GRS 6260 was standing on the road due to puncture in its tyre. One Panalal Bhimraj, a businessman, was going in truck No. RRG 5902, insured with the appellant, from Badmer to Palanpur for purchasing bajra at Palanpur. It was stated that the said truck was hired by Panalal bhimraj and it was being driven by opposite party No. 1. The truck was being taken to Palanpur for lifting bajra from Palanpur to Badmer. The moving truck No. RRG 5902 collided with the Stationary truck No. GRS 6260. No back light was indicated on the stationary truck. On account of this, the accident took place. The deceased, namely, panalal Bhimraj fell down on the road and died on way to hospital. The truck cleaner also died because of this accident. It was also alleged that there were two other traders in the ill-fated truck, who also sustained injuries. It was further alleged that the accident took place due to negligent driving of the vehicle by the opposite party no. 1 and also due to negligence of the driver of the other truck, who did not take proper precaution of keeping the danger signal and back light on.

( 3 ) TWO claim petitions were preferred, one by the heirs of the deceased trader panalal Bhimraj and the other by the heirs of the deceased cleaner.

( 4 ) THE claim petitions were not resisted by the opponent party Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 despite service of notice. It was only resisted by the opposite party No. 3, who is appellant in this appeal. The defence of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the insurance company is not liable for any compensation because the deceased was not carried in the vehicle in pursuance of any contract of employment. It was further pleaded that the deceased was merely a gratuitous passenger and no risk was covered under the policy and hence, the company is not liable. In the alternative, it was pleaded that the liability of the insurance company is limited only up to Rs. 50,000.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal decided the two claim petitions through a common judgment and concluded that the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 would be liable to pay compensation and not the opposite party Nos. 4, 5 and 6. With this finding Claim Petition no. 199 of 1982, out of which this appeal arose was allowed and award was rendered against opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 78,000 together with 6 per cent per annum interest. In another Claim petition No. 112 of 1983, an award was rendered against the same opposite party nos. 1, 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 18,000.

( 6 ) NO appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against award rendered in M. A. C. Petition No. 112 of 1983. The instant appeal, as mentioned above, arises out of award rendered in M. A. C. Petition no. 199 of 1982.

( 7 ) WE have heard Mr. Rajni H. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Chetan Pandya representing Mr. S. V. Raju for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The respondent no. 6 was deleted. The respondent No. 7 was served, but none appears on his behalf. So also, nobody appears for respondent nos. 8 to 10.

( 8 ) THE contention of Mr. Rajni H. Mehta, learned counsel has been that the case is fully covered by the Apex Courts verdict in the case of Mallawwa v. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , 1999 0 ACJ 1 (SC) and as such, the insurance company