Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) VIDE impugned award, claimant -respondents No. 1 and 2 sought compensation on account of death of one Shamsher Singh, who allegedly died due to injuries suffered by him in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of appellant No. 1 -driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Tractor No. HR -16L -1826, owned by appellant No. 2 and was insured by respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE appellants (driver and owner) also denied their liability to pay compensation, denying the factum of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident further stating that the liability to pay, if any, was on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company denied its liability to pay compensation raising various grounds stating that the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and thus, the Insurance Company was not liable to make the payment. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of appellant No. 1. The said findings are duly supported from the statements of PW -1 Malkan and PW -2 coupled with the FIR Ex. P -1 as well as Ex. P2 postmortem report and the chargesheet Ex. P3 etc. Even these findings could not be challenged before this Court on any ground. The Tribunal further found that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,10,000/ -. Before this Court, even the quantum of compensation granted in favour of the claimants has not been challenged.
(3.) IN the instant appeal filed on behalf of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the deceased was an employee of the appellants and therefore, will be covered under the Policy being a cleaner of the offending vehicle and therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation, however, no such plea is taken by the appellants in their defence that the deceased was working on the offending vehicle as a cleaner.;