SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in appeal here is with regard to the liability of the Insurance Company for the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants.

(2.) KRISHAN Lal and Suraj, while travelling in the truck CHW-6185 were killed when it met with an accident with another truck UTX-5347. This happened on October 22, 1982 at about 3-30 A.M. on the Grand Trunk Road between Ludhiana and Khanna. It was the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck CHW-6185. A sum of Rs. 89,700/- was awarded as compensation to the widow and children of Krishan Lal deceased and a similar amount to the mother, widow and three sons of Suraj deceased. The liability for payment of the compensation awarded was fastened upon the driver and owner of this truck. The respondents Insurance Company, with which the truck stood insured was, however, not held to be liable on the finding that the deceased were not being carried in the truck in pursuance of any contract of employment with the truck-owner, that it is, the insured.

(3.) THE expression "contract of employment", as occurring in Section 95 of the Act same came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurdev Kaur 1967 A.C.J. 158, where it was observed that it refers not only to a contract of employment with the insured, but also to a contract of employment of a person, who is on the insured vehicle for sufficient or business reasons and has taken a contract of employment in pursuance of which he was on the vehicle. It was specifically stated that the he need not be under a contract of employment with the insured so long as he was on the insured vehicle by reason of or in pursuance of his contract of employment. In other word, he was on the vehicle because of his contract of employment.