- (1.) In course of argument, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellant very fairly submitted that this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this court in M.A. No. 159 of 2008. The judgment and order passed in M.A. no. 159 of 2008 reads as under: " The sole question that falls for consideration in this appeal, filed by the Insurance Company, is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Insurance Company can be held liable for quantum of compensation or not. It appears that the truck was loaded with the stone boulders and some persons were already sitting on the said truck. The deceased along-with other persons boarded the said truck which met with an accident. The Insurance Company disowns its liability on the ground that persons traveling in a goods carrying vehicle, the Insurance Company cannot and shall not have any liability in the case of death or injury caused in an accident. The owner of the vehicle took defence that the deceased was forcibly boarded in the truck at the instance of the police officers. This court in one of the appeal arising out of the same accident (Ashok Kumar Singh-versus-Pankhrasius Toppo in M.A. No. 134 of 2008) decided on 19th February 2008 held that the Insurance Company shall not have any liability for payment of compensation even assuming that the driver of the truck refuses to carry the deceased and others and under the pressure and threat of the police, he was forced to carry them that will not make the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal cannot be sustained in law. This appeal is, therefore, allowed holding that the owner of the truck is liable to pay the compensation amount to the deceased."
(2.) In the aforesaid premises, this appeal is dismissed holding that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.;