NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SADH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the insurance company, which is aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, in M.A.C. Petition No. 24-S/2 of 2000 decided on 28.4.2006, in as much as the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation.

(2.) THE main ground urged by the insurance company is that the claimant was not a conductor/cleaner in the truck and was a gratuitous passenger and hence the insurance company could not have been held liable.

(3.) THE only question which has been raised in this appeal is whether claimant Sadh Ram was cleaner/conductor or a gratuitous passenger in the truck in question. To appreciate this question, it would be relevant to refer to the claim petition. In para 4 of the claim petition, the claimant had claimed that he was working as conductor in the truck in question. THE owner and driver filed a joint reply to this claim petition. In the said reply they stated that the petitioner has no relationship of conductor with the replying respondents as alleged. It was further specifically submitted that the petitioner-claimant had taken a lift in the truck from THEog and was not a conductor in the truck. THE insurance company also took the plea that since the claimant was not a conductor, he being a gratuitous passenger, insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation.