The insurer is liable for compensatory claims for authorized representatives of goods transported, contradicting prior assumptions of passenger liability.

JUDGMENT :

Sudeepti Sharma J.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-Karambir (driver) and Ashok (owner) of the offending vehicle against the Award dated 03.05.2007 passed in the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claimants were held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,94,500/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on account of death of Tilak Raj, in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 28.06.2005 and liability was fastened upon the appellants to pay the compensation.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the claim petition are that on 28.06.2005, one Ajmer was travelling on his bicycle in the area of village Rohana, Police Station, Kharkhoda. His bicycle was knocked down by a TATA-407 vehicle bearing registration No.HR-46A-5614 (hereinafter called as offending vehicle) driven by respondent No.l-Karmabir, appellant No.l. Ajmer suffered grievous injuries in the said accident. One Tilak Raj was travelling in the offending vehicle who also died in the said accident. Respondent No.2 (Ashok) is owner of the offending vehicle whereas respondent No. 3 is its insurer.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, appellants appeared and contested the claim petition by filing written reply denying the factum of compensation/accident.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues

1. Whether respondent no.1 was rash and negligent while driving vehicle No.HR-46A/5614 and was responsible for causing the accident in question as alleged in the petitions? OPP.

2. If issue no. 1 is proved, whether petitioner Ajmer and deceased Tilak Raj sustained injuries and Tilak Raj died because of his injuries as alleged in the petitions? OPP.

3. If issues No. 1 and 2 are proved, whether petitioner Ajmer is entitled for compensation on account of his injuries and L.Rs of deceased/petitioners of petition titled as Suresh Vs. Karambir are entitled for compensation on account of termination of life of Tilak Raj, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.

4. Whether respondent No.l had no valid and effective driving licence, as alleged by respondent No. 3? OPR. 3.

5. Whether respondent No. 2 had contravened the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy ? OPR-3.

6 Relief.

5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. Further, the learned Tribunal has held the appellants (owner and driver) to pay the compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that the learned Tribunal has erred in granting compensation to the claimants. He further contends that Tilak Raj (deceased), was not travelling as a gratuitous passenger but was accompanying the goods in the goods carriage to ensure their safety and proper delivery. Accordingly, it is submitted that the insurer alone is liable to indemnify the claimants. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal be set aside.

7. Per contra learned counsel for respondent-insurance Company contends that the liability to pay the compensation has rightly been decided by the learned Tribunal, therefore he prays for dismissal of the present appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of the case.

9. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under:-

'11. Issues No.l to 5 are being disposed off together as these involve common questions of law and fact.

12. Suresh (PW1) was an eye wit