- (1.) All the three cases are connected together arising out of the same accident. The petition was in respect of the claim for death of a male, aged 27 years, where the claimants are the widow, two minor children and father. FAO No.164 of 1994 is at the instance of owner and driver of the vehicle challenging the liability cast on them and exonerating the insurance company, FAO No.803 of 1994 is a claim for enhancement of compensation by the claimants and CR No.2023 of 1994 is to challenge the compensation awarded by the Tribunal against the owner of the vehicle.
(2.) The accident arose when the vehicle capsized by breakage of the tie-rod and the person, who died in the accident was reported to be a cleaner of the vehicle. The person that was injured claimed himself to be an alternative driver, driving in the same vehicle. The owner of the vehicle gave evidence to the effect that he did not employed the cleaner on salary of Rs.3500/-. In the crossexamination, it was sought to be suggested to him that he was not an employe but a gratuitous passenger in the truck. Mainpal-PW-1, who was also sit to co-passenger had lodged a complaint. He was crossexamined, where he admitted that no wages was paid to the deceased-Mahender Singh in his presence by the owner. The Tribunal took this statement to be an admission that the deceased could not have been employed as Cleaner. The Tribunal also reasoned that no documentary evidence was filed by the owner to show the engagement of the deceased as cleaner and the absence of any provident fund would also show that he could not be a workman.
(3.) I find, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal to be wholly perverse. A cleaner is not a person, if the owner of the vehicle has given evidence, that the person died driving the truck was a Cleaner.;