The legal heirs of all the deceased persons filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal II , Shimla for short the tribunal .
Being grieved by the awards passed by the tribunal, the insurer preferred FAO MBA Nos.
On companysideration of the evidence brought on record, the tribunal came to hold that the legal representatives of Nagru Ram and Desh Raj were companyered as per the insurance policy, exhibit RW 2/3/A, as the policy companyered six employees and accordingly fixed the liability on the insurer.
The expose of facts are that a truck bearing HP/10/0821 was hired on 12.4.2000 for carrying iron rod and cement by one Durga Singh who was travelling with the goods along with two of his labourers.
The owner of the truck, the present appellant, admitted the fact of hiring the truck but advanced the plea that the insurer was under legal obligation to indemnify the owner.
When the vehicle was moving through Khara Patthar to Malethi, 1.5 KM ahead of Khara Patthar, about 4.30 p.m., it met with an accident as a companysequence of which the labourers, namely, Nagru Ram and Desh Raj and also Durga Singh, sustained injuries and eventually succumbed to the same.
175 and 176 of 2003 wherein the legal representatives of the deceased employees were the claimants.
Before the tribunal, respondent No.
In appeal, the learned single Judge, by order dated 13.1.2006, allowed FAO Nos.
175, 176 and 178 of 2003 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla.
As far as FAO No.
3, namely, National Insurance Company Ltd., apart from taking other pleas, principally took the stand that it was number liable to indemnify the labourers employed by the hirer.
It is worthy to numbere that as the insurance companypany had already deposited the amount of companypensation, the High Court, placing reliance on the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others1, directed that the insurance companypany having satisfied the award shall be entitled to recover the same along with interest from the owner insured by initiating execution proceedings before the tribunal.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
The centripodal issue that emanates for companysideration in these appeals is whether the insurer is obliged under law to indemnify the owner of a goods vehicle when the employees engaged by the hirer of the vehicle travel with the owner of the goods on the foundation that they should be treated as employees companyered under the policy issued in accordance with the provision companytained under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for brevity the Act .
