The deceased was a third party in a motor vehicle accident, thus the insurer is liable for compensation despite claims of him being a gratuitous passenger.

JUDGMENT :

(Satyen Vaidya, J.)

The instant appeal has been filed by the insurer to assail award dated 21.07.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan in Claim Petition No.35-S/2 of 2013 whereby an amount of Rs.22,61,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition has been awarded in favour of the claimants (respondents No.1 and 4 herein)

2. The claimants and owners have also filed their cross objections assailing the impugned award.

3. Both the appeal and cross objections are being considered and decided by a common judgement.

4. The claimants filed Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation on account of death of Shri Sita Ram in a motor vehicle accident involving Tractor No. HP-16-1259. It was alleged that on 03.09.2013 deceased Sita Ram was engaged as a labourer by respondents No.5 and 6 herein (hereinafter referred to as “owners”) and in pursuance thereof he was deputed to load and unload the tractor trolley being driven by respondent No.7 (hereinafter referred to as the “driver”). It was also averred that at about 10.00 PM, the Tractor No.HP-16-1259 being driven by driver reached at village Pajopar, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, H.P. The deceased was also the occupant of the tractor. The driver was driving the tractor rashly and negligently, as a result of which the tractor had fallen in a drain, causing the deceased to fell down from the tractor and suffer multiple bodily injuries resulting in his death.

5. The claimants claimed the income of deceased at Rs. 9000/- per month from such avocation of labour. In addition, the deceased was alleged to be earning Rs.4,000/- from agriculture and additional Rs.3,000/- per month from selling milk. In this manner, the total income of deceased was claimed at Rs.16,000/- per month.

6. Indisputably, claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants No.2 and 3 are children and claimant No.4 is the mother of the deceased. The age of the deceased at the time of death was 30 years. All the claimants were said to be totally dependent upon the deceased for livelihood.

7. Owners and driver filed their joint reply and disclosed the factum of Tractor No.HP-16-1259 having been insured by the appellant herein (hereinafter referred to as the “insurer”) comprehensively for the period 03.08.2013 to 12.08.2014. The averments with respect to deceased earning Rs.16,000/- per month were specifically denied. The allegation of deceased having been engaged for loading and unloading of material was also denied. It was stated that the driver was driving the tractor in a slow speed. The road was narrow at the place of accident. The deceased was standing on the left side of the road, which was sloppy. The deceased appeared to be drunk. When the trolley of the tractor was crossing the deceased, he all of a sudden lost balance and fell down, as a result of which he struck against the rear portion of the trolley and suffered injuries. In this manner, the allegations of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver have also been denied. The driver also alleged to be possessing a valid and effective driving license issued by R&LA, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P.

8 The insurer in its reply raised the objection that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Even the validity of registration certificate of Tractor No.HP-16-1259 was questioned. The deceased was alleged to be a gratuitous passenger. The insurer denied that the deceased was occupying the tractor at the time of accident as a labourer engaged to unload the material.

9. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues on 4.3.2015:

“1 Whether deceased Sita Ram died in a motor vehicle accident having taken place on 3.9.2013, at about 10:00 p.m. at village Pajopar, District Sirmour, H.P, on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing No.HP-16-1259 by respondent Ramesh, as alleged? OPP.

2 If