The insurance company's liability to compensate was affirmed, determining that the deceased was a helper covered under the policy, contrary to the lower court's ruling.

1. This appeal under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') has been preferred by the appellants / driver and owner against award dated 23.3.2023 passed by Upper Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur Distt. Surajpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 151/2021.

2. By the impugned award, the Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant and awarded a total sum of Rs.14,81,200 in favour of respondent No. 1 / claimant and respondent No. 3 on account of death of Dharmjeet, who was son of respondent No. 1 and husband of respondent No. 3, in an accident occurred on 3.3.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (pickup van), bearing registration No. CG 29 - AD 2845, by appellant No. 1, owned by appellant No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 2 - insurance company. However, insurance company has been exonerated by the Tribunal, holding that there is breach of policy condition.

3. As per the pleading of the claim petition, the deceased - Dharmjeet, aged about 20 years, was working as a helper / khalasi on the pickup van bearing registration No. CG 29 - AD 2845 owned by appellant No. 2. On 3.3.2021 as per the instruction of the owner, the deceased along with his friend Sunil Singh were going to village Asura along with goods in the said pickup van. The deceased was sitting at the back of the vehicle and at about 2 p.m., when they reached Surajpur Main Road near village Asura, the vehicle met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver / appellant No. 1 and Dharmjeet / deceased fell down from the vehicle, due to which he sustained serious injuries and was hospitalised. During treatment he died on 4.3.2021.

4. Father of the deceased filed application under S.166 of the Act. Written statement were filed by non - applicants including appellants. The learned Tribunal framed issues, decided those issues in favour of the claimant and awarded aforesaid compensation. The learned Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle on the ground that there was breach of condition of insurance policy on the part of appellants, thereby exonerated the insurance company from its liability.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased - Dharmjeet was working as a labourer / helper on the offending vehicle and on the date of incident, he was going along with the driver in the aforesaid vehicle under the instruction of appellant No. 2 / owner. He would further submit that this fact has not only been pleaded and established by the claimant and his witnesses, rather in charge - sheet also the police has stated that the deceased was working as khalasi on the offending vehicle. Despite that, the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that he was travelling as a gratuitous passenger in the said vehicle. He would further submit that the offending vehicle was insured vide package policy (Exh. NA - 1), wherein, risk of the driver, cleaner and helper was also covered. Therefore, finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that there is breach of policy condition is completely perverse and illegal and thereby the Tribunal has committed gross error in law by exonerating the insurance company. Hence, it is submitted by the counsel that the impugned award may be set aside to the extent of exonerating the respondent insurance company from payment of compensation and shifting liability upon the appellants / owner and driver. Consequently, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the liability of payme