The Insurance Company is liable for compensation if it fails to prove the deceased was an employee (helper) and the policy covers passenger risk; furthermore, compensation must be calculated based on the applicable minimum wage notifications.

Judgment on Board

1. Since both the above titled appeals, filed in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arise out of a common award dated 29- 9-2018 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.268/2016 and since common questions of facts and law are involved in both these appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The Claims Tribunal by the impugned award has awarded a total sum of ₹ 9,27,200/- as compensation for the death of Salim Khan, who working as Helper in Vandemataram Bus Services, aged about 33 years at the time of incident by fastening liability upon the owner of the vehicle – Bus. The claimants are wife, children and parents, of deceased Salim Khan.

3. The owner of the vehicle has preferred MAC No.2010/2018 questioning the award to exonerate him from payment of compensation, whereas the claimants have preferred MAC No.291/2019 questioning the award amount claiming enhancement.

4. Mr. Achyut Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle, would submit that there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the deceased was sitting in the vehicle in the capacity of passenger for which risk is covered and policy has been issued, but the Claims Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that he was the Helper in the vehicle and therefore the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

5. Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation to the claimants. He would further submit that the deceased was working as Helper in Vandemataram Bus Services and the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have taken his monthly income to be ₹ 5,860/- on the basis of notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2021, whereas, it has been taken as ₹ 4,500/, therefore, the amount of compensation be enhanced suitably.

6. Mr. R.N. Pusty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, would submit that the claimants and the witnesses have clearly stated that the deceased was Helper of the vehicle, therefore, the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated from the liability.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.

8. Though the claimants and the witnesses have maintained the fact that the deceased was Helper of the vehicle, but the witness of owner of the vehicle namely, Rajni Patel (NAW-2) – Manager of the owner of the vehicle, has clearly stated that the deceased was travelling as passenger in that vehicle and all of a sudden, he jumped and suffered accident. This witness has been cross-examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, however, she has clearly refuted the fact that the deceased was working as Helper in the said vehicle. Similarly, driver of the vehicle Sanjay Das has also been examined and he has also stated that the deceased, all of a sudden, jumped from the running bus and suffered grievous injuries. He had also refuted the statement that the deceased was working as Helper in the Bus. Furthermore, the Insurance Company in the written statement para 1 filed before the Claims Tribunal has refuted the fact and denied that the deceased was working as Helper in the vehicle