IMRAN Vs. HUSSAIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M .F.A. 2524/10 has been filed by the claimant in a case in MVC. 628/07 which was pending on the file of MACT, Mangalore. The connected appeal, M.F.A. 2656/10 is filed by the insurer on the ground that the Tribunal should not have mulcted liability on the insurance company when the owner -cum -driver of the three -wheeler goods tempo had taken the assistance of the claimant while transporting iron rods. The delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is condoned and LA filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the insurer has vehemently argued that the claimant who was injured in the said accident, at the best, would be the authorized representative of the owner and therefore he does not come within the meaning of 'employee' to claim compensation as per the insurance policy issued by the insurer.

(3.) THE evidence on record goes to show that the claimant was not a gratuitous passenger. What is argued before this court by the insurer is that even if it is accepted that the owner -cum -driver had taken the assistance of the claimant to load iron rods to the tempo and to transport the same to the destination, he would be, at the best, an authorized representative of the owner and would not get any compensation as per the policy conditions issued by the insurer vide Ex. R1.