( 1 ) THROUGH this appeal, judgment of MACT (Main) Rajkot District (District Judge) Rajkot District in MAC Case NO. 382/85 dated 9. 5. 88 is challenged. Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, claimant was cleaner in the Revenue Department Government of Gujarat, earning Rs. 450. 00 per month apart from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 10/- from the tea hand cart in his free time, total earning Rs. 700. 00. Accident took place at about 12. 30 p. m. (noon ). Driver (Opponent No. 1) was driving offending tanker He had been engaged by Morbi Taluka Panchayat (Opponent NO. 4 ). Tanker belonged to Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat (Opponent No. 2 ). It was insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Opponent NO. 3 ). Allegation is that tanker was being driven at excessive speed, rashly and negligently, thereby endangering human life on the road. It turned turtle and claimant sustained injuries. Ultimately, his right leg was amputed. He was 22 year old at the time of accident. Consequently, compensation of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 is claimed.

( 3 ) OPPONENT No. 2 states, inter alia, that it is not possessing various details as to age, injuries etc. of the claimant, therefore, not admited. Offending vehicle was registered in the name of Collector, Surat. In RTO and it was taken by Rajkot Water Tanker Sub Division and it was given on hire as per Government Rules and Regulations to Taluka Development Officer, Morbi as per document dated 21. 6. 1985. It was exclusively in possession and use of the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat, Morbi,at the time of accident. All expenses of repairs, pay of driver etc. were also borne by it. It was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Which denies contentions raised and states that the vehicle was insured in the name of Director of Relief, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat c/o Executive Engineer, Water Tanker Division, Gandhinagar. Further, offending tanker is a private carrier given on hire to the Taluka Development Officer, Morbi by insured when the accident took place. Insured had totally surrendered control of the offending vehicle to the Taluka Development Officer, Morbi and had no control over it, in terms of section 2 (19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Claimant was not in the employment of the insured at the relevant time. Therefore, claim is not covered under the policy of insurance. Private carrier was handed over to TDO Morbi, therefore, insurer is not liable to indemnify the claim. Taluka Development Officer, Morbi denies allegations in the claim. It is alleged that the vehicle is owned by the Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. It is denied that it was being driven rashly and negligently at excessive speed without taking care of the persons on the road. Fact that it turned turtle, therefore, claimant suffered injuries resulting in amputation of right leg is denied.

( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, Claims Tribunal framed following issues at Exh. 40 : (1) Whether the applicant proves that he sustained injuries as a result of rash and/or negligent driving of Tanker No. GTC 5423 by Opponent NO. 1? (2) If so, whether the applicant proves that he is entitled to recover Rs. 2,00,000. 00 or any part thereof from the opponents or any of them ? (2a) Whether the liability of opponent No. 3 insurance Co. , if any, is restricted and limited as per Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, applicant being a cleaner and policy of insurance being of TP Risk only ? (2b) Whether the Employer opponents are liable to pay penalty of 50 per cent on the amount of compensation to the applicant ? (3) What order ?

( 5 ) AFTER recording evidence, hearing parties, findings recorded are, claimant suffered injuries as a result of accident caused by rash and negligent driving of offending truck by its driver. Claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,25,800. 00 from opponent driver and TDO, Taluka Panc