VANGUARD INS. CO. LTD. Vs. BAHOTI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and the cross objections arise out of the order of the Tribunal established under the Motor Vehicles Act dated 27.5.1964 awarding a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - by way of compensation to the legal representatives of Bihari Lal who is alleged to have died in a motor accident on 15.6.1959. The appeal is filed by the Vanguard Insurance Company with which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured against the award of compensation in favour of the legal representatives of Bihari Lal. The cross objections are filed by these legal representatives for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Leaned Tribunal.

(2.) THE legal representatives of Bihari Lal, who will be hereinafter referred to as the Respondents, filed an application under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter referred to as the Act claiming compensation of Rs. 20,000/ - from the driver and owner of the motor vehicle and also from the Insurance Company with which the said vehicle was insured. According to the averments in this application the deceased Bihari Lal along with 3 other persons was sitting on the back of the motor vehicle No. DLP -1804 which was a truck and that the driver of the truck while reversing the vehicle struck against a tree with the result that deceased Bihari Lal was crushed between the trunk of the tree and the body of the truck. Deceased Bihari Lal was removed to the Irwin Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on the next day. According to the Respondents the accident occurred due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the driver of the truck. The deceased was earning Rs. 4/ -per day. The Respondents estimated the pecuniary loss sustained by them by the untimely death of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/ - and claimed this amount from the driver and the owner of the motor vehicle as well as from the Appellant.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. H S. Dhir challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the claim put forward by the Respondents. His contention is. that the deceased Bihari Lal was a workman as defined in Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and that the accident occurred in the course of his employment and the claim for compensation if any ought to be made under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This contention however, is not supported by the evidence in this case. According to AW 2 and 3 who an; said to be the other persons who were in the truck at the time of the accident, they as well as the deceased had undertaken the work of loading and unloading manure in the truck on contract basis and further that they had been engaged for this work by the driver of the truck. The truck owner himself is not carrying on any business in manure. His business consists only for plying the truck on hire for other persons. The truck had been engaged by a third person for the carrying of manure and it was for the work of the said third person that the deceased and his companions were engaged by the driver of the truck on contract basis. There was thus no relationship of employer and workman between the deceased and the owner of the truck. The deceased might or might not be workman vis -a -vis the third person who had engaged the truck on hire for the purpose of carrying manure but so far as the owner of the truck is concerned the deceased was not a workman employed by him. Therefore, the claim for compensation for the death of the deceased in the motor accident does not come within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act.