JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. RAMBABU JAISHWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the owner of the Truck under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the 'Act') against the award dated 27.2.1985 passed in Claim Case No. 27 of 1981 by Additional Motor Claims Tribunal, Satna.

(2.) FACTS : The claimant/respondent Nos. 1 to 9 filed under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Hiralal, the husband of respondent No. 9 and father of respondent Nos. 1 to 8 for the death caused in motor accident on 1.5.1980 by the Truck in which the deceased was traveling as a passenger as the owner of the truck carrying goods. The driver/owner of the truck and Insurance Company respondent No. 10 contested the claim. The defence of the Insurance Company was that the deceased was a passenger for hire or reward in the goods carrier, therefore the Insurance Company in not liable to pay any compensation or to indemnify the owner of truck.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was traveling in the truck as the owner of the goods therefore in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Shankar Tiwari v. Jugru and Ors. 1987 JLJ 712: 1987 ACJ 1 (FB) M.P., the Insurance Company is liable to cover the risk under Section 95(1)(b) proviso (ii) of the Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company the respondent No. 10 contended that the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger at his risk. To prove that owner of the goods can also travel with the goods in the truck, the appellant has not produced the insurance policy to make the Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner, therefore the award passed by the Tribunal exonerating, the Insurance Company does not call for any interference. 6. After hearing the Counsel we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has illegally exonerated the Insurance Company, when the Tribunal has recorded a clear cut finding that the deceased was traveling as the owner of the goods, in that circumstance the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger, as the law is settled that if theownerof the goods or his employee travels with the goods, the Insurance Company shall be liable to cover the risk of such a hirer-agent or his employees travelling with the goods in a goods vehicle under Proviso (ii) Clause (b) of Section 95(1) of the Act as a passenger carried for reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. See Hari Shankar Tiwari's case (supra). 7. Though, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, we are not inclined to enhance the compensation as the claimants have not preferred cross-objections. However, when the Tribunal applied the multiplier after determining the dependency, committed an error in making deduction for lumpsum payment. Law is settled that while determining compensation the multiplier applied takes care of all heads. See the case of Dhanvanti and Ors. v. Phulwant and Ors. 1994 JLJ