1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- 1. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 230 of 1996 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. V/S SMT.AMARTI & ORS. 2. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 231 of 1996 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD V/S PEERA RAM & ORS 3. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 486 of 1995 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD V/S CHAINA RAM & ORS Mr. RK MEHTA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RAJESH PANWAR & Mr. SK SANKHLA,) for the respondent Mr. RJ PUNIA for Mr. VIJAY BISHNOI,) Date of Order : 7.2.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- These three appeals arise out of a common judgment of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer, dt. 10.2.1995, decreeing seven claims, arising out of same accident, for various amounts. Since in other four claims the amount awarded was less than the appelable amount, therefore, appeals have been filed in three claim cases only. 2 The necessary facts are, that on 26.4.1991, at about 6 A.M., the defendant was driving the truck, wherein the victims were also traveling, the truck loaded with sand. It was being driven negligently, with the result, that on the road leading from Langera to Gadraroad, near Bhakhri, it overturned, wherein three persons died on the spot, and other persons received injuries. The defendants filed their separate written statement, and the Insurance Company contested the claim, on the ground of it being not liable for various reasons, including the driver not having any valid license, and the persons being not entitled to travel in the goods vehicle. The learned Tribunal framed various issues, and four issues were framed on the relevant controversy, which is now before me, being issue No.3 to 6. Issue no.3 comprehended the questions as to whether the victims were traveling in the vehicle as unauthorised passengers, and are therefore, not entitled for compensation. Then issue no.4 related to driving license, issue no.5 related to requirement of permit, and issue no.6 related to invalidity of the driving license on different count. The learned Tribunal placed burden of these issues on the insurer, and finding, that insurer has not led any evidence, while except deceased Mangu Singh all other persons were working as labourers in loading and unloading sand in the truck. 3 Mangu Singh was traveling in the vehicle as a passenger for hire and reward, and it cannot be said, that they were illegal passengers, and thus, the issue was decided against the insurance company. Assailing the impugned judgments it was contended, that all said and done, the victims were traveling in the goods vehicle, and their risk is not required to be covered by virtue of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, irrespective of anything, the insurance company cannot be held liable. Learned counsel then relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Smt. Thokchom Ongbi Sangeet @ Sangi Devi & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in JT 2007(12) SC 279. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted, that the victims were labourers, and insurance company had undertaken liability with respect to death or bodily injury to the labourers, to the extent of 4, and therefore, the insurance company is liable. Learned counsel for the owner, on the other hand, invited my attention to the findings of the learned trial Court on issues no.3 to 6, and submitted, that insurance company has failed to prove those issues, and that, the victims had boarded the truck without his knowledge, and without his authorisation, as such, the owner is not liable. 4 I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the record. A look at the insurance cover which is an admitted document on record shows, that therein a total premium of Rs.1335/- was charged, which included act policy premium including liability for driver and cleaner being Rs. 1245, and Rs. 90/- were charged for four coolies. Coming to the provisions of Section 147, thereunder in order to comply with the requirements of the Act, the insurance cover should be issued against any liability, which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including the owner of the goods, or his authorised representative, carried in the goods vehicle, and is not required to cover the liability in respect of death arising out of and in the course of his employment, and in respect of bodily injury sustained by such employees, arising out of and in the course of his employment, other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act in respect of death of or bodily injury to any such employee, engaged in driving the vehicle, or in case of public service vehicle being engaged as a conductor of the vehicle, or if it is a goods vehicle, being carried in the vehicle. Thus, the liability required to be covered with respect to labourers, is only 5 with respect to liability covered under Workmen's Compensation Act. Obviously, therefore, they are required to be shown to be the employees of the insured, on the vehicle, and that the accident should be shown to be arising out of and in the course of employment. In this regard a look at the evidence produced by the claimants itself shows, that Chaina Ram A.W.1, in Claim No. 80/91, being subject matter of Appeal No. 486, in the cross- examination has clearly deposed, that Peera, Bajranga and he himself were working on the truck as labourers, while his wife Jhanjho, Champa, Paru victim in the case relating to Appeal No. 436, and being the victim in the case comprising in Appeal No. 231, were not the labourers on the truck, rather in the next sentence he has further stated, that Jhanjho, Champa, Paaru, son of Paaru, and son of Champa, were given a gratuitous lift, in view of the driver being of their acquaintance. Likewise, A.W. 1 Peera in Claim No. 82/91, being subject matter of Appeal No. 231, has also deposed in cross-examination in identical terms, rather in identical language. This, in my view, sufficiently establishes, from the claimant's own evidence, that the victims were not the workman. Admittedly Mangu the victim in Claim No. 84/91 being subject matter of Appeal No. 230 is not alleged to be traveling in the truck in the capacity of an employee, or workman, nor is he claimed to be traveling as owner, or 6 representative of the owner of the goods. Thus, in my view, none of the victims fell out of category of any of the persons required to be covered under Section 147, or actually covered by the insurance policy, and thus the Insurance Company could not be held liable. Law in this regard is now well settled by series of recent judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Smt. Thokchom Ongbi Sangeeta's, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma & Ors reported in JT 2007(12) SC-319 and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meena Vriyal & Ors., reported in JT 2007(5) SC 65. In that view of the matter, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable, and is required to be exonerated. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The award impugned, so far as it holds the appellant liable to make payment of the compensation, is set aside, and the appellant is exonerated. The parties shall bear their own costs. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/