BHARAT PIRAJI JADHAV Vs. RAJKUMAR BALIRAM SURYAWANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by owner of the vehicle against the judgment and award of Claim Petition No.29 of 2009 which was pending before the Claim Tribunal Nilanga. As the insurance company is exonerated, it is not asked to indemnify the owner, the owner has challenged the decision. Heard both sides.

(2.) The accident took place on 4-6-2008. Deceased Priyanka was aged about 14 years and she was daughter of claimant Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that at the relevant time the deceased was present in the trucktanker baring No.MH-11/A-5498 as the employee and she was proceeding to the place of work. The tanker was being used for carrying tar. The tanker turned turtle and Priyanka died in the accident. In claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act compensation of Rs.2.5 lakh was claimed against the driver, owner and insurance company of aforesaid vehicle. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,500/- on the principle of fault but the insurance company is exonerated by holding that age of the deceased was only 14 years and she could not have been employed as a labour on such work.

(3.) To substantiate the claim, mother has given evidence which is as per the aforesaid contentions. The deceased was sitting in the cabin of the truck-tanker. In the cross examination evidence is given by the mother that deceased was getting Rs.70/- per day and she was expected to spread the tar on the road after going to the place where the work was going on. At one place she admitted in the cross-examination that she was the passenger but the evidence as a whole needs to be read and the evidence as a whole shows that she was present in the vehicle as a labour of the owner. In police papers there is mention that labours were proceeding in the tanker for doing the work of construction of road.