(Deepak Gupta, J.) - These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of one Award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II) Shimla on 20.4.2005 in MAC Petition No. 17-S/2 of 2001.

2.Maghi Ram, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, was travelling in a truck No. HP-07-4227 owned by Shri Hari Gopal, hereinafter referred to as the owner on May, 3, 2000. The truck met with an accident. The claimant filed a claim petition in which he alleged that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. According to the claimant he sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture of left femur and left wrist. He also alleged that he had hired the truck for bringing empty apple wooden crates from Kalka.

3.The owner and driver admitted the accident but denied that the same had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The owner and driver of the truck who had filed a joint written statement denied the allegation that the truck had been hired by the claimant. The National Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured amongst other pleas also raised a plea that the claimant was not an authorized passenger and that he was travelling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,07,257/- alongwith interest @ of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The learned Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the claimant was not travelling in the truck as a hirer thereof. The learned Tribunal accordingly held that the Insurance Company was not liable to reimburse the owner but directed that the Insurance Company should satisfy the award and it would be entitled to recover the same from the owner.

4.Aggrieved against this award, FAO No. 298 of 2005 has been by the Insurance Company. The plea of the Insurance Company is that once it was held that the Insurance Company was not liable, the insurer could not have been directed to satisfy the award.

5.The owner of the vehicle Hari Gopal has filed an appeal being FAO No. 302 of 2005 and in this appeal it is alleged that the liability should be fastened on the Insurance Company. It is also urged that the amount of compensation is excessive.

6.The claimant appeared as a witness as PW3. According to him, he had hired the truck. His version is that on 3.5.2000, he was going in the truck from Kotkhai to Kalka to get empty wooden crates for apples. He also states that he has engaged in the business of purchase and sale of wooden crates for packing apples and purchases these wooden crates from Kalka to sell them in Katkhai and the surroundings villages. In cross-examination by the Insurance Company, he admitted that normally whenever, he buys the empty wooden crates at Kalka, he transported the same is truck(s) hired from Kalka itself. He, however, volunteered that on that date, he had hired the truck from Kotkhai and he admits that at the time of accident, the truck was empty. Though he has not made any statement in the examination-in-chief about the payment of any amount, in cross-examination, he states that he hired the truck for Rs. 5000/-. He later stated that he was to pay Rs. 5000/- in cash for hiring of the truck. According to him, he settled the hire charges with the truck driver. The truck in question was registered with the Kotkhai Truck Operations Union. He states that no slip was taken from the union. According to him, before this date, he had never hired any truck from the union. He admits that in ordinary course, the union issues a slip in respect of the trucks hired through the union.

7.PW5 is the office Secretary of the Kotkhai Truck Operations Union. He states he knows the claimant who deals in the sale and purchase of empty wooden apple crates. Accord