Point of law: Compensation - When a specific Policy has been taken by respondent No. 3-owner of the vehicle, then the liability of the Insurance Company will be confined to that arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act in terms of the Policy. The award passed by the learned Tribunal assessing the liability is, therefore, not in consonance with the provisions of Policy.

JUDGMENT :

A sum of Rupees 3,39,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants as compensation on account of death of their son in a motor accident. The liability to pay the compensation amount has been fastened upon the Insurance Company. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal.

2(i) Mathin Khan was son of respondents No. 1 and 2. On 29.9.2014 he was travelling in vehicle No. HP-17B-6788 from Paonta Sahib to Majra, District Sirmour. The vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 4. It met with an accident causing Mathin Khan’s death. His parents filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rupees 8,00,000/-. The claimants stated that their son was aged about 21 years at the time of accident. He was the sole bread earner of the family, bringing home Rupees 12,000/- per month from his labour/catering work etc. He was in the employment of respondent No. 3-the owner of the ill fated vehicle.

2(ii) The owner of the vehicle/respondent No. 3 submitted in his reply that the deceased was employed by him for loading and unloading of water campers, tent material and catering articles from the vehicle in question. Deceased was travelling in the vehicle in that capacity. The income of the deceased was not more than Rupees 3,000/- per month. Though FIR No. 341 dated 29.9.2014 was registered at Police Station, Majra regarding this accident against respondent No. 4 but the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of a truck coming from the opposite direction. Respondent No. 4 i.e. the driver of HP-17B-6788 was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. This reply was jointly filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle.

2(iii) The Insurer also resisted the claim petition. Its stand was that the deceased was travelling in the goods carriage vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. It was further pleaded that the deceased was himself negligent as he was standing along with 7-8 persons in the rear of the vehicle.

3. After considering the respective pleadings, evidence and contentions of the parties, learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 4. The deceased was held to be travelling in the vehicle as a labourer employed by respondent No. 3 for loading and unloading and not as a gratuitous passenger. His age on the date of accident was determined as 24 years. His income was assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month. The dependency of the claimants was worked out at Rs.1500/- per month. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 was applied and the totally dependency was worked out as Rs.1500X12x18=3,24,000/-. An amount of Rs.15000/- was awarded to the claimants on account of funeral expenses. In all the claimants were held entitled to a compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant raised two main contentions for assailing the award. Firstly, that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. He was himself negligent as he was standing in the rear portion of the goods carriage vehicle alongwith 7-8 persons, therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The second contention raised is that the Insurance Policy for the vehicle in question does not cover the risk of passengers travelling in the goods carriage vehicle. Therefore, the appellant cannot be fastened with liability to pay compensation on account of death of Mathin Khan. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the award. They submitted that deceased was travelling in the vehicle not as a gratuitous passenger but as a labourer in employment of the owner of the vehicle. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the case