The central legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer is liable as per the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy, regardless of the actual use of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award, dated 31.12.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Case No. 109 of 2004, titled as Shakuntla Devi versus Shri Parvesh Thakur and others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 3,17,000/with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant injured and the insurer was directed to satisfy the award at the first instance with a right to recover the same from the ownerinsured and the driver (for short "the impugned award").

2. The claimant injured, the insurer and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

3. The appellant ownerinsured, Shri Parvesh Thakur, has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in granting right of recovery to the insurer.

4. The argument, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the following reasons:

5. The tractor, bearing registration No. HP223934, is the offending vehicle, in which the claimant injured, namely Smt. Shakuntla Devi, was travelling as a labourer, at the time of accident, as averred in para 24 of the claim petition. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 24 of the claim petition herein:

"That on illfated day dt. 7.1.2002, the petitioner being the labourer of Contractor Ashok Kumar was asked to load and unload the certain material from Tractor Regn. No. HP 22/3934. The petitioner while was on the tractor with some other labourers at near village Dagsech, Teh. Sadar, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P. the driver of the tractor was driving the said tractor in a very rash and negligent manner and as a result of which the Trolly of the tractor fell across the road due to which the petitioner sustained multiple injuries on her person. Her left leg and limb have been fractured. Soon after the accident, she was shifted to Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur on the very same day in unconscious condition and on 9.1.2002 she was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh where she remained as Indoor patient uptill 20.1.2002. Thereafter she again remained admitted in Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur, HP upto 27.1.2002. She was got operated in PGI Chandigarh and the petitioner is still under treatment. The petitioner also became permanent disable. The petitioner was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from the source of labourer and agriculturist and she has five minor children who were totally dependent upon the petitioner, but after the accident she is not in a position to do the manual work in any manner and to maintain herself as well as her minor children. She has spent Rs. 1,00,000/- on her treatment and has also suffered mental pain, harassment and sufferings etc. due to the said accident. That the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 2 who was servant of respondent No. 1, owner of the vehicle involved in accident and the said vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3 as such all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner jointly and severally."

6. The averments contained in para 24 (supra) have not specifically been denied by the ownerinsured and the driver of the offending vehicle.

7. The insurer has specifically stated in its reply that the claimant injured was a gratuitous passenger in the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time.

8. Admittedly, the claimant injured was travelling as a labourer in the offending vehicle, at the relevant point of time, which was engaged by contractor, namely Shri Ashok Kumar for executing the contract work.

9. The registration certificate, Ext. RC, is on the record at pages No. 125 to 128 of the paper book, which does disclose that no token tax was recovered from the appellant owner insured for the reason th