Important Point – Where claimants are belonging to lower strata of society, appeals will be decided by Court taking into consideration provisions of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.

R.P DHOLARIA, J.:— Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 30.9.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 692, 693, 694, 695 and 702 of 1996, the appellant has preferred the present appeals.

2. The short facts of the case are that on 31.12.1995 at about 12.00 hours, the appellants were travelling in Truck No. GJ 17 T 5486 as labourers. The said truck was loaded with gravels and was going at Simaliya.l At that time, respondent No. 1 driven Truck No. GJ 17 T 5486 in rash and negligent manner and as a result thereof, the said truck turned turtle wherein some labourers were died and some labourers sustained grievous injuries.

3. Mr. Shelat has argued that the deceased as well as injured who were travelling in the aforesaid Truck No. GJ 17 T 5486 were travelling as unauthorized labourer and the capacity of the labourer is not established.

4. This Court has gone through the impugned judgment and award as well as material available on record. The material on record clearly suggests that the original applicants were travelling in the aforesaid offending truck as labourer for loading and unloading of gravels and, therefore, submissions advanced by Mr. Shelat cannot be accepted.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat for the appellant has alternatively argued that the policy of the insurance on record at Exh.48 discloses that the insurer has taken comprehensive policy, but on going through the policy, the particulars therein disclose that insurer has paid premium for the driver and two cleaners, but no extra premium is paid covering the risk of labourer so as to cover the liability as envisaged under section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act. During the course of submissions, Mr. Shelat has fairly admitted that since comprehensive policy covers the capacity of the persons who were travelling upon the aforesaid offending truck and establishes as labourer, their coverage may be believed under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923 and since learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation as if their coverage was there under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the claimants are belonging to the lower strata of the society, let these appeals be decided by this Court taking into consideration the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.

6. Against the aforesaid arguments advanced by Mr. Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant, on going through the particulars of the insurance policy, there is no answer by Mr. Modi, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He, therefore, submitted that as the claimants were working as daily wage labourer in the aforesaid offending truck as well as doing some piece-meal work on daily wage basis, this Court may pass appropriate order by taking sympathetic view in these appeals.

7. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, learned advocates for both the sides were requested by this Court to work out as to what is the compensation admissible under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923. After doing computation, learned advocates for the respective parties have given calculation as under.

8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeals succeed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal in the aforesaid respective claim petition is modified and the compensation in these appeals is awarded from Rs. 2,92,500/- to Rs. 1,62,682/- in MACP No. 692 of 1996, Rs. 2,92,500/0 to Rs. 1,60,177/- in MACP No. 693 of 1996, Rs. 47,900/- to Rs. 30,497/- in MACP No. 694 of 1996, Rs. 30,200/-