NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SHEETA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1992 and Misc. Appeal No. 231 of 1991. Both arise out of the same award dealing with the same accident. The facts have been taken from M. A. No. 5 of 1992.

(2.) A truck No. MPG 485 turned turtle. This happened because there was failure of the brake system. The incident is said to have taken place on 28. 5. 1985. Ram-vilas Sharma said to be employed by the owner of the truck received injuries to which he succumbed in the hospital on the same day. A claim petition was filed by the widow, two minor daughters and the son. It was found that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs. 600/- per month and was contributing fifty per cent of this to the family kitty. The age of the deceased was 30 years. A multiplier of fifteen was applied and the compensation was assessed at Rs. 54,0007 -. Rs. 15,000/- having already been paid towards no fault liability, a direction was given to pay the remainder of the amount of Rs. 39,000/ -. This was to bear interest which was fixed at 15 per cent per annum. Both claimants as well as the insurance company were dissatisfied with the award given by the Tribunal. Both have appealed.

(3.) THE plea of the insurance company is that the deceased was not employed as a workman but was travelling as a passenger. For this reliance has been placed on averments contained in paras 1 to 3 of the claim petition and also the reply filed by the owner of the truck. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the deceased was not travelling as a passenger but was employed by the owner of the truck as a labourer on the truck. I do not find any reason to differ with the finding so recorded by the Tribunal. Even though the owner of the truck has denied the assertions made by the claimants, he had chosen not to appear in the witness-box. This is obvious. The owner of the truck was not prepared to face the cross-examination to which he would have been subjected. The owner of the truck was a contractor and was engaged in construction activity. The truck was being used by the contractor for carrying building material. The mere fact that the claimants have mentioned that the deceased was working at the site would not change his status from a labourer to a passenger. The deceased was employed by the contractor. If he was loading and unloading the goods or was doing some other work at the site, it would not in any way take him out of the purview of the term 'labourer' for the purpose of awarding compensation to his heirs. As such, there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the company.