IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.: 109 of 2005 Date of decision : 18.12.2009 Kanta Devi and others …Appellants. Versus Janak Singh and others …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. I.N.Mehta, Advocate. For the respondent No.3: Mr. G.D.Sharma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This appeal is directed against the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, in MAC Petition No. 20 of 2002 decided on 1.12.2004 whereby he has dismissed the claim petition. The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Shri Parveen Kumar; son of petitioner No.1 Kanta Devi and brother of claimants No. 2 and 3 in a vehicular accident on 12.2.2000. According to the claimants the deceased was travelling in tractor No. HP-21-1569 as a labourer. The owner of the tractor denied the fact that the deceased was engaged 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 as a labourer but claimed that he had employed the deceased as a driver on the tractor after checking his driving license. Respondent No.2, who was alleged to be driver of the tractor also stated that it was the deceased himself who was driving the tractor. The claimant in her cross-examination admitted that Praveen Kumar used to work as a driver at times. The learned trial Court relying upon the statements of the RWs came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to prove that the tractor was driven by Surjeet Singh. There was sufficient material on record to show that the tractor was driven by deceased Praveen Kumar himself. He, therefore, dismissed the claim petition. I have heard Shri I.N.Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri G.D.Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. After going through the material on record, it is apparent that the findings given by the learned Tribunal that the deceased Praveen Kumar was himself driving the tractor in question is based on the evidence on record, especially the evidence of RW-1 Janak Singh; owner of the tractor, RW-3 Surjeet Singh, who was alleged to be driving the tractor and RW-2 Kuldeep Singh; who was in fact sitting in the tractor 3 when it met with the accident. They all stated that the deceased himself was driving the truck. In view of the above discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the award of the learned Tribunal. Having said so, as per the statement of the owner he had engaged the deceased as a driver on the tractor. If this is true then the deceased was driving the tractor during the course of employment and then the claimants would have been entitled to compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Without going into the merits or expressing any opinion as to whether the claimants would be entitled to compensation under the said Act, I, while dismissing this appeal grant liberty to the appellants to file proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, if so advised. Needless to say, the respondents shall have the right to contest the said claim petition on all grounds. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 18th December, 2009 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.