The liability of the insurance company in respect of gratuitous passengers being carried in a goods vehicle is limited, and the insurance company cannot be held liable for compensation in such cases.

These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they both arise out of the same accident.

2. MAC Appeal No.36 of 2010 is directed against the award dated 24th March, 2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Kailashahar, whereby he held that the claimant is entitled to get compensation Rs.1,48,000/- along with interest, but exonerated the insurance company and fixed the liability to pay compensation on the owner, who has filed MAC Appeal No.36 of 2010.

3. MAC Appeal No.25 of 2012 is directed against the award dated 14.09.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala whereby he held the claimants entitled to pay compensation of Rs.15,32,570/- and the liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs.75,000/- and that the State was held liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.14,57,570/-.

4. The undisputed facts are that one tanker bearing registration No.TR-01A-1870 was owned by Sri Chandan Sengupta. The said tanker was being driven by Sri Prantosh Rudrapal. On 04.05.2005 at about 1415 hours, the said tanker fell into a deep gorge at S.K. Para. In the said tanker, one police officer and four labourers are alleged to be travelling. In this case, we are dealing with two claim petitions, one filed by Sri Ranju Chakma, an injured person and the other by the widow and father of Rana Sur, a Tripura State Rifles (hereinafter referred to as ‘TSR’)) police official travelling in the vehicle.

5. In T.S. (MAC) No.04 of 2009 filed by Sri Ranju Chakma, it was stated that the injured was 39 years of age and was working as day labour in Northern-Frontier Railway and name and address of the employer was shown to be Railway Contractor, S.K. Para, Manu, Dhalai. It was also alleged that after duty hours the claimant used to earn extra amount by produces incense sticks out of bamboo (agarbati). It was stated that the deceased was travelling by the offending vehicle which was a water Lorry, but nowhere it was stated that the claimant was engaged as a labourer on the truck in question.

6. The owner filed written statement and denied all the allegations made in the petition. He denied the fact that the claimant suffered injury in the accident. In fact each and every averment made in the claim petitions is denied. It would be pertinent to mention that in Para 10 at the reply filed by the owner he stated as follows:-

“10. That, it is submitted that the claim petition of the claimant petitioner is silent as to the fact how the claimant petitioner became the victim of alleged accident and how he was proceeding through the water lorry in question and on what capacity he went there. In absence of specific averments therefor, the claim petition of the claimant petitioner is not entertainable and the averments of the claimant petitioner are not believable.”

7. There is not a whisper in the claim petition that the injured person was travelling in the vehicle as a labourer hired by the owner of the goods or by the truck. The learned Tribunal held that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and therefore, held the owner alone liable to pay compensation.

8. The owner did not step into the witness box and the award was passed ex parte against him. Along with the appeal, the owner has filed two applications one under Order XLI Rule 27 to adduce additional evidence and in this application it is stated that the claimant was a labourer under the appellant employed and in discharge of contract work under the Railway authority the water was being carried in the lorry in question and the claimant was deputed by the owner appellant on that lorry to carry water and therefore the claimant was wrongly treated to be a gratuitous passenger. The second application is that an additional issue be framed as to whether the claimant was a gratuitous passenger or not.

9. I find no merit in both the applications. The owner has not placed any material to show that he was a Railway contractor