GIANO DEVI Vs. GIAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE propose to dispose of these three appeals by a common judgment as they have arisen out of the same accident. F.A.O. No. 166 of 1988 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement, whereas F.A.O. No. 178 of 1988 has been filed by the New India Assurance Company, Shimla against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (2), Shimla on the plea that it is not liable for payment of compensation awarded under the said award. F.A.O. No. 170 of 1988 has also been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the award passed by the aforesaid Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (2), Shimla in M.A.C.T. Case No. 14 S/2 of 1988.

(2.) BRIEF facts of these appeals need to be given in order to properly appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the parties.

(3.) MR . K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the award passed against his client is not sustainable and he made a feeble attempt to further rake up the question that the deceased was not engaged as a labourer by the owner as held by the Tribunal below and thus he has further attempted to urge that the award against his client is liable to be set aside. All these contentions were controverted by Mr. Ashok Sharma, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.