Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). These two appeals and the cross-objection of the claimant are against the award dated 8.4.96 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara in Claim Case No. 505/92 (180/91) by which the learned Tribunal awarded claim of total Rs. 2,61,000/- to the claimant-respondents.

(3). Brief facts of the case are that the accident took place between Jeep No. RJ-6-C-102 with Dumper No. 2232. Both the vehicles were owned by the respondent Hindustan Zinc Ltd. The dumper was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. whereas the Jeep was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. In the accident, the driver of the Jeep Bhanwarlal expired. The tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Kanhaiyalal, the driver of the dumper and held that death was not caused because of any negligence of the deceased Bhanwarlal. However, while deciding the issue No. 5, the tribunal held that the risk of the 3rd party, particularly, employees of the owner of the vehicle was not covered in the policy of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and, therefore, held that the owner of the vehicle Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. are liable jointly and severally. The tribunal exonerated the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. from the liability to reimburse the claim amount.

(4). The owner of the vehicles Hindustan Zinc Ltd. preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 219/1997 whereas the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 389/1996 to challenge the award against them. The claimant preferred cross- objection (S.B. Civil Cross Objection No. 11/2003) in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 219/1997 and sought relief of enhancement of the claim.

(5). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(6). According to learned counsel for the appellant Sh. R.K. Mehta appearing on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the award against the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. deserves to be set aside because of the reason that the risk of the employees is not covered in the insurance policy issued for the Jeep and as per the proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was not under obligation to cover the risk of the driver or employees of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is not liable for the claim amount.

(7). It is also submitted that the accident took place within the premises of the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and the place where accident occurred is not a public place, therefore, the appellant is not liable to reimburse the claim amount. Appellant can, if liable, then can be liable in a case when accident occurs on public place. Lastly, it was submitted that the tribunal mis-read the documents and wrongly exonerated the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. from the liability to reimburse the award amount.

(8). Learned counsel for the appellant Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Sh. T. Gupta submits that the tribunal has committed serious illegality in allowing the claim petition whereas learned counsel for the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Sh. Sanjeev Johari supported the award exonerating the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and relied upon the endorsement annexed to the insurance policy providing exception which exclude the claim of employees of the M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.

(9). The claimants in cross-objection prayed that the claim amount is too low in the light of the facts that the deceased was getting salary more than of Rs. 5,000/- per month and was of the age of 40 years only, but the tribunal committed error in holding that age of the deceased was 45 years and applied multiplier of 6 only, which should have been at least 15. It is also submitted that the tribunal has committed illegality in not considering the future prospects of the income of the deceased.

(10). I considered the rival submissions. It is clear from the facts that the appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. thoug

Click Here to Read the rest of this document