ORDER
Bhawani Singh, C.J.
1. The only question for determination in this case was whether the
deceased was conductor in the vehicle in question or was a fare paying
passenger or a gratituous passenger. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion
that he was not conductor. Responsibility for payment of compensation has
been held to be that of the appellant obviously on the ground that he was a
gratuituous passenger, as evidence in the case does not suggest payment of
fare by him. In this situation, Apex Court decision in 2000(2) M.P.H.T. 340 =
AIR 2000 SC 235, New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Satpal Singh
applies. The quantum of compensation cannot be assailed by the appellant in
the absence of permission from the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal. The same
is dismissed.
2. Shri Ruprah prays for and is allowed two months’ time for making the payment.
3. Certified copy be supplied.
