Rajib Datta VsMurari Mohan Debnath

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—This appeal by the owner is directed against the award dated 19-06-2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur in case No. T.S. (MAC) 184 of 2007 whereby he has held the owner liable to pay the compensation and exonerated the Insurance Company.

The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the Insurance Company can be held liable to pay the compensation or not.

The claimant was admittedly traveling in truck No. TR-03-1882 which is a goods vehicle owned by Sri Rajib Datta. The truck was being driven by one Md. Taher Miah and it was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. In the claim petition, it is stated that the claimant is a self-employed day labourer (mason). It is further stated that on the said date the claimant was traveling in the truck after loading goods into the truck and he along with other labourers was going to Santirbazar from Udaipur side. In the latter part of the claim petition, it is alleged that they had loaded some articles in the truck for building construction.

As far as the owner is concerned, in the reply filed by the owner nothing is stated as to in which capacity the claimant was traveling in the truck.

The parties led evidence and the claimant stated that on the date of occurrence he along with other labourers was proceeding from Udaipur to Santirbazar in the truck in question which was carrying construction material. He has also stated that he was a mason and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month.

The learned Tribunal held, and in my opinion rightly, that the deceased was not a labourer engaged either by the owner of the truck nor was he the representative of the owner of the goods. As far as being labourer employed by the truck is concerned, the truck owner has not said that the claimant was his employee. The claimant himself has stated that he was a self-employed mason, meaning that he was not employed by any other person. In cross-examination, again he has stated that he is a mason earning Rs. 4,000/- per month.

A mason is not a coolie and not a labourer to load goods in a truck. There is no evidence on record as to what goods were being carried in the truck and who was the owner of the goods. In fact, the claimant himself has not stated that he was either the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay compensation.

In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

Send down the lower court records forthwith.