- (1.) JUDGEMENT :- Narendra Singh is the truck owner in whose truck the claimant injured was travelling at the time of the accident.
(2.) The Tribunal has passed an order under S.92-A for the payment of Rs. 7500/- to the claimant. In this appeal Mr. Gupta appearing for the appellant made twofold argument; firstly, he submits that since there was no permanent disablement, S.92-A has no application. Secondly, it was argued that the Insurance Company should be made liable. Mr. Lodha appearing for the Insurance Company submits that insurance company is not liable for various reasons. According to him, the driver has been left out and, therefore, the claim cannot succeed. It was then argued that unless rashness and negligence of the driver is proved against him and he is made party, the claim cannot succeed apart from the misjoinder of the parties in appeal wherein he has been joined. It was then argued that the injured was not travelling for hire or reward and according to the version in claim, he was going with his father continuously and, therefore, no claim can be entertained. Mr. Lodha also argued that there was no permanent disablement.
(3.) In rejoinder Mr. Gupta submitted that he and Mr. Lodha both assert that there was no permanent disablement and no compensation in compliance with S.92-A should have been allowed. On other points Mr. Gupta controverted the submission of Mr. D.M. Lodha.;