BALDEV SINGH Vs. VIDYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of F. A. O. Nos. 856 and 857 of 1989 as common questions of law and Facts are involved in these appeals. For the purposes of this judgments the facts have been taken from FAO No. 856 1989.

(2.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 10. 4. 1989 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in this case allowed a claim of Rs. 72,000/ -. However, the Tribunal held that compensation assessed will be payable by Baldev Singh and Surender Singh, respondents, jointly and severally. As regards the Insurance Company, that is, New India Insurance Company Ltd, Sirsa, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

(3.) MR. Munishwar Puri, Advocate, counsel for the appellant, has strongly contended that the finding for the Tribunal recorded in para 25 of the judgment in so far as it holds that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay is erroneous in law. He has also drawn my attention to the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased labourer was to unload the goods at the destination. It means that the deceased was working for the owner of the truck. Mr. Munishwar Puri relied upon the decisions of this Court reported as M/s. United India Insurance Co. v. Rattan Singh, (1987-2)92 P. L. R. 518. Sushil Kumar v. National Insurance Co. , (1986-1) 89 P. L. R. 458. Abdul Sattar Qureshi v. Mehboob, (1986-1) 89 P. L. R. 567. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Ltd. v. Matta Chandra Rao, (1987) 2 A. C. C. 28, Vivek Kumar v. Kasturabai, (1987) 2 A. C. C. 362, and Hullanbai v. Jagdish Prasad, 1991 A. C. J. 198, for the proposition that if a labourer is engaged for leading and unloading of the truck, the Insurance Company is liable He has also invited my attention to the policy, Annexure P/2, according to which six labourers are allowed. He further submits that the labourer had died.