Point of Law: In private employment like the one in the instant case, it is invariably of casual nature and the payments are often made by the hirer of vehicle and the statements of the witnesses required appreciation in such perspective.

JUDGMENT :

The instant appeal has been preferred by the insured against the Award dated 01.06.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, (for short “the Tribunal”), in M.A.C.No.51 of 2007, whereby appellant has been fastened with liability to pay the awarded amount of compensation along with interest to respondent No.1 herein (for short “the claimant”).

2. Claimant had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ‘the Act’) for grant of compensation against appellant (insured/owner), respondent No.2 (for short “driver”) and respondent No.3 (for short “insurer”) on the premise that the claimant had suffered injuries and permanent disablement as result of motor vehicle accident involving tractor bearing No. HP-69-0628. The case of the claimant was that on 02.10.2006, he was engaged as labourer by the owner and driver for loading and unloading the goods i.e. construction material in the trolley attached to the aforesaid tractor. It was further alleged that, while unloading the tractor at village Nand, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, the tractor turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of driver and resulted in causing injuries and permanent disablement to the claimant.

3. The owner and driver had submitted their joint reply. The rash and negligent driving on the part of driver was denied. It was submitted that at the time of accident the tractor was parked for unloading the mud. Claimant was unloading mud and due to his own negligence, he skidded and fell down and sustained injuries. It was further submitted that the vehicle/tractor was insured with the insurer and the liability, if any, was to be borne by the insurer.

4. The insurer contested the petition by raising preliminary objections, with respect to breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Allegation of collusion between the claimants and the owner was also levelled. As regards violation of terms of policy, it was submitted that the owner did not have valid registration certificate as well as policy of insurance for the tractor in question. It was further submitted that the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence. The claimant was also termed to be the unauthorized/gratuitous passenger. On merits, the averments made in the claim petition were denied in generality.

5. Learned tribunal had framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries on 2.10.2006, at village Nand, Tehsil Ram Shehar, Police Station and District Solan, H.P. falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ram Shehar, District Solan, H.P., due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor No. HP-69-0628 being driven by respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 supra is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, as alleged? OPR-3.

4. Whether the petitioner was travelling in the offending tractor as gratuitous passenger at the relevant time? OPR-3.

5. Whether the offending tractor was being plied without relevant documents in contravention of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act? OPR-3

6. Relief.

Issues No. 1, 2 and 4 were decided in affirmative, whereas issues No.3 and 5 were decided in negative. The claim petition was allowed in favour of the claimant. An Award of Rs. 3,94,000/- along with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit was passed. The liability to pay the awarded amount was fastened on the owner. Hence, the owner is in appeal.

6. I have heard Mr. Jagat Paul, Advocate, for the appellant/owner and Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, for the insurer and have also gone through the entire record carefully.

7. The owner has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the liability to pay awarded amount has been wrongly fastened against him. As per him, the vehicle/tractor wa