—- «~~—- ——- -uw–» w..5…yx»..-.-E.–..-.-. .u-uummu-nan unwn wvvnl vvr I\l’|nl’li”llJ”lsl\f’l’-‘l’Il\’l’I1’I..’b\JIJI§.l “U? !\HKNH!Rl\’fl fllbfl i.UUK!’ U!’ lCRKl’lK’¥F\K¥\”!”H§5’H’ ‘
deceased was employed by the insurediio as a
loader and unloader in the Tractor~?rai}ersewned
by’ him. The Commissioner also whe1di:that”~the_
deceased sustained an empleyment;iihjur@§ dhrihg_f
the course of employment fihiIeVdischargihg:§he
duty as a loader and ahioaderi”®ihere£ore, the
insurer” is liable fito’fiiedemniiyi the insured in
respect of the c1aiadeffi#%§,¢iéifiants. In that
view’ of _thed2@atter;{:thégidomfiissioner directed
the ihs§%e% fig hag codfiehsation. By accepting
the case of the ciaimahts regarding the income
of the deceased} the Commissioner quantified the
_o compehsatioh”payable at Rs.2,82,061/–.
h’e}aBeihg aggrieved by the said order, the
ineurer~ has filed this appeal raising the
.i”,ifo11oQiag substantial question of 1aw:~
Whether the Commissioner is
justified in holding that the insurer
is liable to indemnify the insured in
respect of the ciaim of the claimants
though the deceased was not a person
who was carried in the vehicle at the
time of accident and death.
%%/.
‘*”.”‘.-‘-.””-‘- –_–..-.. –. . …–.u–ruruwn uuauu-s-wgmymn wt’ nrinlvnlunfi rliwfi hmltlltl UP !\ilKlTHIflfiH’ Hitifi ‘IJ”JU!H UF”!§HI¢NfllRKR’ HIUH’LUUKl’ U!’ flRKl’H\IRl\fi” l’!’lU’H”|.’.
12
covered though such an employee was outside the
vehicle at the time oi accident. Bgt{* the
question considered in this decision is whethe§_i
the jurisdiction cfif the Motof Accidents Qléims
Tribunal is ousted on a subsefiueht fihding thst”g
the accident was not due ts the negligence of
one of the jeint tort teasetiii
12) There is”Qo sefiepsV¢hallefige as to the
correctness _of_ the” quantum _of Cempensation
awarded. _..-i”eMi ….
in View of the diséussiens made abave, I
see no merit in any cf the grounds urged in the
a§peqle~Tfi§;éaare no graunds to interfere with
the *findings: bf” the Commissioner. Hence, the
‘j éppeal is fiismissed.
Sd/ -*
JUDGE