ALAGADURAI Vs. IMMANUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) TO the crucially relevant and vital facts first. There is no serious dispute on facts. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. He was one of the two drivers employed alternatively by the owner of the vehicle to drive the vehicle. That vehicle is admittedly a goods carriage and is covered by a valid policy of insurance. On 6. 7. 1997, the appellant was engaged in driving the vehicle. He was to complete his schedule of work and get out of the vehicle on that day. The other driver of the vehicle was expected to come and relieve him from duty. That driver did not come for work as expected. The owner of the vehicle wanted the appellant to go with the vehicle and fetch the other driver. The appellant drove the vehicle to the place where the other driver was expected to be available. He was traced. Hewas asked to get into the vehicle. The vehicle was driven back to the owner. On that lap of journey, the appellant continued to be carried in the vehicle. But the other driver was actually driving the vehicle. While the other driver was driving the vehicle, on account of rashness and negligence of such driver, the vehicle overturned. The appellant as well as some others who were travelling in the vehicle suffered injuries. Some of them succumbed to the injuries. All those who suffered injuries claimed compensation. The driver and the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurer were arrayed as respondents. It is the contention of the appellant that while he was being carried in the goods vehicle belonging to the owner of the vehicle in connection with his employment as driver of the vehicle (though he was not actually engaged in driving at the relevant time) the vehicle had met with an accident because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. He hence claimed that he is entitled to get compensation. He asserted that not only the driver and owner of the vehicle but the insurer is also liable to compensate him.

(3.) THE application for compensation was resisted. The 1st respondent - the owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The 2nd respondent entered appearance. The 4th respondent - the real insurer (the 3rd respondent was originally shown as the insurer and he was later deleted from the array of parties) admitted insurance coverage of the vehicle; but contended that the policy does not cover the liability in so far as the appellant is concerned as he was only a gratuitous traveller in the goods carriage. In this appeal the real insurer alone is arrayed as the 3rd respondent.