GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for modification of the order dated 18.5.2004 wherein the appeal was ordered to be listed on 28.5.2004 and till that date only, an order, practically in the nature of status quo, was passed to the effect that neither the Insurance Company nor the claimant shall press for execution of the award against the appellant -owner of the vehicle. Unfortunately, for the claimants, the matter could not be disposed of for one reason or the other and although the claimant pressed for execution before the Tribunal, no order was passed in his favour in spite of the fact that the order of stay remained effective only up to 28.5.2004 as it has been stated that the Tribunal thought it proper to await a categorical order from this Court before proceeding in the matter of execution of the award. This is the reason for filing this application for modification of the order dated 18.5.2004.
(2.) HAVING heard the Counsel for the claimant as also the appellant -owner of the vehicle and the respondent Insurance Company, it is obvious that there is no justification to stay the impugned award against the claimant when the dispute is subsisting only in regard to liability of the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle to pay the amount of compensation. The Counsel for the appellant -owner of the vehicle has relied upon the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. v. Baljeet Kaur reported in I (2004) ACC 259 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that if a gratuitous passenger travels in a goods vehicle and thereafter meets with an accident, then in view of Section 17(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended in 1994, the Insurance Company is liable to pay amount to the claimants but the right of recovery from the owner of the vehicle will accrue in favour of Insurance Company if ultimately it is held that the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay the amount of compensation.
(3.) IN view of the ratio of this decision, it was examined whether a prima facie case is there in favour of the appellant -owner of the vehicle so as to saddle the liability of payment of compensation on the Insurance Company. It could be noticed from the evidence on record that the injured -claimant suffered 100% disability since he met with an accident while travelling on a trailer attached to the tractor owned by the appellant and this accident occurred when the agricultural produce was being carried on trailer to be sold in the nearby market.;