JUDGMENT 1. -These five appeals arise out of the common Award dated 29.5.1995 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand and relate to the same accident and, therefore, all these five appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.6.1989 at about 6.30 p.m., truck No. RPA 9876 over-turned on the public highway near village Mokhampura. The accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Devi Singh. The truck was owned by Modi Lime Products. The labourers, who were travelling in/on this truck received injuries on account of this accident. The injured were taken to the hospital where they were medically treated. Injured Dungar Singh, Ram Singh, Kesar Singh, Chamna, Bhanwar Singh and Saw Singh filed claim petitions against driver Devi Singh, owner Modi Lime Products and the United India Insurance Company before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand for the award of compensation. Since all these claim petitions relate to the same accident, therefore, the learned Judge of the Tribunal, by its order dated 21.7.1990, consolidated these claim petitions and recorded the evidence in Dungar Singh v. Devi Singh & Ors., Claim Petition No. 87 of 1989 . During the pendency of the claim petitions, injured claimant Kesar Singh (claimant in Claim Petition No, 89 of 1989) died and his legal representatives did not approach the Tribunal and, therefore, the claim petition filed by Kesar Singh became abated. 3. The claim petitions were contested by the owner of the vehicle as well as by the insurance company. The claimants, in the remaining five claim petitions, examined themselves as PW 1 Dungar Singh, PW 2 Ram Singh, XW 3 Chamna, PW 4 Bhanwar Singh and PW 5 Saw Singh and got exhibited the site inspection note (Ex. 1), injury report of Dungar Singh (Ex. 2), X-ray report of Dungar Singh (Ex. 3), Admission Slip of Doongar Singh (Ex. 4), injury report of Ram Singh (Ex. 5), X-ray report of the injuries received by Ram Singh (Ex. 6) and Discharge Ticket of Ram Singh (Ex. 7), injury report of Chamna (Ex. 6), X-ray report of Chamna (Ex. 9), injury report of Bhanwar Singh (Ex. 10), injury report of Saw Singh (Ex. 11) and X-ray report of Saw Singh (Ex. 12). 5), X-ray report of the injuries received by Ram Singh (Ex. 6) and Discharge Ticket of Ram Singh (Ex. 7), injury report of Chamna (Ex. 6), X-ray report of Chamna (Ex. 9), injury report of Bhanwar Singh (Ex. 10), injury report of Saw Singh (Ex. 11) and X-ray report of Saw Singh (Ex. 12). The non- claimants examined NAW 1 Shri V.D. Gupta, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company, Rajsamand and placed on record the insurance policy (Ex. A/1). 4. The learned Judge of I he Tribunal, by its Award dated 29.5.1995 awarded the compensation amounting to Rs. 15,000/- to claimant Dungar Singh in Claim Petition No. 87 of 1989, Rs. 15,000/- to claimant Ram Singh in Claim Petition No. 88 of 1989, Rs. 20,000/- to claimant Chamna Gurjar in Claim Petition No. 90 of 1989, Rs. 10,000/- to claimant Bhanwar Singh in Claim Petition No. 91 of 1989 and Rs. 25,000/- to claimant Saw Singh in Claim Petition No. 92 of 1989. Claim Petition No. 89 of 1989 filed by Kesar Singh was di missed being abated. It is against this Award dated 29.5.1995 that the owner of the vehicle, i.e., Modi Lime Products, has filed the present appeals. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence available on record to show that the accident took place on account of the rashness or negligence on the part of Devi Singh - the driver of the truck and the claimant sustained injuries because of this accident and in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Devi Singh, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. It is, also, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimants were neither in the employment of the appellant nor any money was charged from them as the fare and as such the claimants were the gratituous passengers and, therefore, they are not entitled for any compensation. It is, also, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is highly excessive and no material has been placed on record by the claimants to substantiate their claims. It is, also, submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is highly excessive and no material has been placed on record by the claimants to substantiate their claims. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the truck was never authorised to carry the passengers in the truck. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not justified in not holding the insurance company liable to indemnify the claim inspite of the fact that the truck in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company. 6. Nobody appeared on behalf of the claimants inspite of service. Learned counsel for the insurance company has supported the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant except regarding the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the claim. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The first question which requires consideration is : how the accident took place and who was the person responsible for the accident ? All the claimants are the injured and the eye-witnesses of the accident. They were travelling in the truck which over,turned and they received injuries. PW 1 Dungar Singh has stated that he, Chamna, Sawji, Rama and Bhanwar Singh were travelling in the truck. The driver of the truck drove the vehicle at a fast speed. He requested him to drive the truck at a slow speed but he did not accede to his request and the truck was being driven rashly and negligently which over-turned near Mokhampura. 9. PW 2 Ram Singh has stated that he was travelling in the truck. Near Mokham-pura the truck over-turned as it was being driven rashly. 10. PW 3 Chamna has stated that he was travelling in the truck and the driver of the truck was driving it rashly and negligently and the truck over-turned near Mokham-pura. 11. PW 4 Bhanwar Singh has stated that he was travelling in the truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. As the truck was being driven rashly and negligently, he, therefore, requested the driver to stop the truck and leave him there. The truck was being driven at a fast speed and it over-turned near Mokhampura. 12. 11. PW 4 Bhanwar Singh has stated that he was travelling in the truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. As the truck was being driven rashly and negligently, he, therefore, requested the driver to stop the truck and leave him there. The truck was being driven at a fast speed and it over-turned near Mokhampura. 12. PW 5 Saw Singh has stated that he was travelling in the truck. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently and it was moving in a zig zag manner. They requested the driver to drive the truck at a slow speed but the driver did not accede to their request and the truck over-turned near Mokhampura. 13. All these witnesses have stated that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently and on account of the fast speed it was moving in a zig zag manner but not even a single question has been asked to any of them by the non- claimants on this point. No witness has been produced by the non-claimants on this point. Even the driver of the truck has not been produced by the non-claimants to controvert their statement. From the evidence of these witnesses it therefore, stands established that it was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Devi Singh that the truck over-turned near Mokhampura and the claimants received injuries. It was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Devi Singh that the accident took place. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding the driver of the truck (Devi Singh) responsible for the accident. 14. The next question which requires consideration is regarding the liability of the appellant or the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. If the claimants were the labourers employed on the truck then the owner and the driver will be liable to pay the compensation and the insurance company will be liable to indemnify the same; but if they were the gratituous passengers travelling in the truck without making any payment of fare or without being employed on the truck then neither the owner nor the driver is liable to pay compensation nor the insurance company is liable to indemnify the claim. 15. 15. PW 1 Dungar Singh has stated that about 4/41/2 years before, at about 4.00 p.m. he boarded the truck near Rajnagar. The driver of the truck asked him that the truck is carrying oil tins which are to be unloaded at Gomti and he will pay him the labour charges. Chamna, Saw Singh and Rama, also, boarded the truck and Bhanwarji was already sitting in the truck. The truck driver took them in the truck for unloading the oil tins. The truck was being driven at a fast speed. They requested the driver to drive the truck at a low speed. The truck over-turned near Mokhampura. He was sitting in the cabin and on account of this accident, his left leg was fractured. From there, they were taken to Police Station, Rajnagar and from there they were sent to the hospital. He remained in Rajnagar hospital as an indoor patient for 11/2 days and thereafter he was shifted to Udaipur Hospital. His left leg was put under plaster for 15 days. He remained idle at his home for one year and, now, he cannot do the Labour work with the same capacity as he was doing earlier. He was earning about Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- per month but now he can earn only Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 1,300/- per month. A criminal case regarding this accident was registered at Police Station, Rajnagar. He has further stated that he has spent Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- for his treatment and Ex. 4 is his admission slip. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he was forcibly taken in the truck by the driver and actually he was not ready to do the Labour work. He has, also, admitted that on that day he had gone to Rajnagar to attend the criminal case in which he was an as occused. He has, also, admitted that he was going to his house and the truck driver did not charge any amount from him as fare. 16. The site inspection note (Ex. 1) clearly shows that the truck was empty. Though this witness has stated that he was engaged by the driver to unload the oil tins but there were no oil Ens either on the truck or lying near the place of the accident. 16. The site inspection note (Ex. 1) clearly shows that the truck was empty. Though this witness has stated that he was engaged by the driver to unload the oil tins but there were no oil Ens either on the truck or lying near the place of the accident. This witness has not paid any amount to the driver of the truck as fare for carrying him to Rajnagar. He was an accused in a criminal case and he had gone to attend the hearing in the Court. He has neither paid any amount to the driver of the truck as the fare nor was he employed on the truck and, therefore, he was a gratituous passenger and was travelling in the truck without making any payment towards the fare. 17. PW 2 Ram Singh has stated that about four years before he had gone to Rajnagar for labour work. He was sitting at the bus stand. A truck came there and the driver of the truck told him that there are oil tins on the truck which were to be unloaded at Gomti circle and paid him Rs. 10/- for unloading the truck and he boarded the truck. Near Mokhampura the truck over-turned, due to which he received injuries. His colar bone was fracturned and he, also, received injury on his left leg. The police personnel took him first to the Rajnagar Hospital where he remained admitted for two to four days and his injury report is Ex. 5, Ex. 6 is the X-ray report and Ex. 7 is the discharge ticket. His leg and colar bone were plastered. He remained in the bed for about two months. He was earning about Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month from the Labour work and, now, he is doing only the agricultural work and his working efficiency has been impaired. He has spent about Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- on his treatment. In the cross-examination he has admitted that there were oil tins on the truck and he was sitting over the roof of the cabin of the truck and fell down from there on account movements of the oil tins. He has spent about Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,500/- on his treatment. In the cross-examination he has admitted that there were oil tins on the truck and he was sitting over the roof of the cabin of the truck and fell down from there on account movements of the oil tins. He has admitted that the oil fins carried on the truck did not belong to them and he does not know where from these oil tins were carried on the truck but the truck was to be unloaded at the house of Devi Lal Kalal at Gomti. He has, however, admitted that the driver of the truck did not charge Rs. 5/- from him as the fare. He has further stated that the truck driver asked him that if there is someone to go to Gomti because he requires some person to unload the truck at Gomti. 18. Though this witness has stated that the truck was carrying the oil tins but the site inspection note (Ex. 1) prepared by the Investigating Officer shows that the truck was found empty. Even no oil tins were recovered from the truck or from the place nearby the place of the accident. If the oil tins would have been there on the truck, the same would have been found either on the truck or nearby the place of the accident because on account of over- turning of the truck the oil tins must have fell on the ground. This witness has admitted that he did not pay any amount to the driver of the truck towards the fare. In the absence of any oil tin found on the truck or nearby the place of the accident, no question of unloading the oil tins, for which this witness was allegedly engaged, arises. The evidence of this witness that he was engaged by the driver of the truck to unload the oil tins from the truck, therefore, does not inspire confidence. As neither any amount towards fare was paid by the witness nor he was engaged by the driver of the truck to unload the oil tins, the witness was a gratituous passenger in the truck. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in treating this witness as the gratituous passenger. 19. As neither any amount towards fare was paid by the witness nor he was engaged by the driver of the truck to unload the oil tins, the witness was a gratituous passenger in the truck. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in treating this witness as the gratituous passenger. 19. PW 3 Chamna has stated that about 4/41/2 years before he had gone to Pajnagar to attend the hearing in a case. While returning therefrom, the truck driver met F m and asked that he had to unload the truck at Gomti. Rs. 10/- were settled as the labour charges for unloading the truck. He board the truck. The truck over-turned near Mokhampura and his right leg was fractured. He cannot travel without the aid of a stick. He remained admitted in Rajnagar Hospital for one day and thereafter he was admitted in Udaipur Hospital where he remained admitted for twenty days. His right leg got fracture and he spent Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- on his treatment and still his treatment is going on. Ex. 8 is the injury report and Ex. 9 is the X-ray report. In the cross-examination he has stated that he remained admitted in the hospital for about twenty days but he does not have the medical bills etc. He has, also, admitted that he had gone to Rajnagar to attend the Court- case in which he is the accused. He has, also, admitted that all the claimants had gone to Rajnagar to attend the Court case in which they were the accused. In those days the Courts were observing the morning-time. After attending the Court-work they came at the bus stand and were taking rest there. 20. This witness has admitted that he had gone to Rajnagar to attend the criminal case and all the claimants were the accused in the case. He has not paid any amount to the driver of the truck towards the fare. Ex. 1 clearly shows that the truck was empty. Even no oil tins were recovered from the truck or from the place nearby the place of the accident. If the oil tins would have been there on the truck, the same would have been found either on the truck or nearby the place of the accident because on account of over,turning of the truck the oil tins must have fell on the ground. If the oil tins would have been there on the truck, the same would have been found either on the truck or nearby the place of the accident because on account of over,turning of the truck the oil tins must have fell on the ground. This witness had admitted that he did not pay any amount to the driver of the truck towards the fare. In the absence of any oil tin found on the truck or nearby the place of the accident, no question of unloading the oil tins, for which this witness was allegedly engaged, arises. The evidence of this witness that he was engaged by the driver of the truck to unload the oil tins from the truck, therefore, does not inspire confidence. As neither any amount towards the fare was paid by the witness nor he was engaged by the driver of the truck to unload the oil tins, the witness was a gratituous passenger in the truck. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in treating this witness as the gratituous passenger. 21. PW 4 Bhanwar Singh has stated that about 4/41/2 years before he was standing at the bus stand, Rajnagar. The truck driver engaged him for unloading the oil tins at Gomti, for which the Labour charges of Rs. 10/ to each labourer was fixed. He thereafter boarded the truck and the truck over- turned near Mokhampura, on account of which he received injuries on his shoulder and eye-brow. The injury report is Ex. 10. He was taken to Rajnagar Hospital where he was given the First Aid. According to him, he spent about Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- on his treatment. 22. Though this witness has stated that the truck was carrying the oil tins but the site inspection note (Ex. 1) prepared by the Investigating Officer shows that the truck was found empty. Even no oil tins were recovered from the truck or from the place nearby the place of the accident. If the oil tins would have been there on the truck, the same would have been found either on the truck or nearby the place of the accident because on account of over-turning of the truck the oil tins must have fell on the ground. This witness has admitted that he did not pay any amount to the driver of the truck towards the fare. This witness has admitted that he did not pay any amount to the driver of the truck towards the fare. In the absence of any oil tin found on the truck or nearby the place of the accident, no question of unloading the oil tins, for which this witness was allegedly engaged, arises. The evidence of this witness that he was engaged by the driver of the truck to unload the oil tins from the truck, therefore, does not inspire confidence. As neither any amount towards the fare was paid by the witness nor he was engaged by the driver of the truck to unload the oil tins, the witness was a gratituous passenger in the truck. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in treating this witness as the gratituous passenger. 23. PW 5 Saw Singh has stated that about four year{ before, he was standing at bus stand, Rajnagar and was waiting for a bus to go to his home. The truck came there and the driver of the truck asked him that he has to unload the oil tins at Gomti and he will pay Rs. 10/- for this work. He accepted the offer and sat on the truck. The truck over-turned near Mokhampura and he received injury on his waist. He was taken to Rajnagar Hospital and thereafter to Udaipur Hospital where he remained as an Indoor Patient for 15 to 16 days. He spent Rs. 10,000/- on his treatment. Thereafter he remained bed-ridden for about six months. He was earning Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 1,600/- per month prior to this accident and, now, he cannot do the labour work and he feels difficulty while standing. In the cross-examination he has admitted that he was waiting for the bus at the bus stand and wanted to go to his house. He has, also, admitted that he had gone to Rajnagar to attend the Court-case. He has, however, denied that they forcibly boarded the truck despite the fact that the driver of the truck refused to take them on the truck. He has stated that he did not produce the cash memos pertaining to the medical treatment. 24. Though this witness has stated that the truck was carrying the oil tins but the site inspection note (Ex. 1) prepared by the Investigating Officer shows that the truck was found empty. He has stated that he did not produce the cash memos pertaining to the medical treatment. 24. Though this witness has stated that the truck was carrying the oil tins but the site inspection note (Ex. 1) prepared by the Investigating Officer shows that the truck was found empty. Even no oil tins were recovered from the truck or from the place nearby the place of the accident. If the oil tins would have been there on the truck, the same would have been found either on the truck or nearby the place of the accident because on account of over-turning of the truck the oil tins must have fell on the ground. This witness has admitted that he did not pay any amount to the driver of the truck towards the fare. In the absence of any oil tin found on the truck or nearby the place of the accident, no question of unloading the oil tins, for which this witness was allegedly engaged, arises. The evidence of this witness that he was engaged by the driver of the truck to unload the oil tins from the truck, therefore, does not inspire confidence. As neither any amount towards the fare was paid by the witness nor he was engaged by the driver of the truck to unload the oil tins, the witness was a gratituous passenger in the truck. The learned Judge of the Tribunal was, therefore, justified in treating this witness, also, as the gratituous passenger. 25. In view of the fact that the claimants were the gratituous passengers travelling on the truck without making any payment of fare, they were not asked by the driver to board the truck and they boarded the truck at their own request and the truck driver gave them the lift, they are not entitled for any compensation. Merely because the driver of the truck gave them the lift without charging any fare, the driver and/or the owner of the vehicle are not liable to pay compensation to the injured-claimants as they were the gratituous passengers. The claim petitions, filed by the claimants, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. 26. In the result, all the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed. The Award dated 29.5.1995 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand is quashed and set-aside. The claim petitions, filed by the claimants, therefore, deserve to be dismissed. 26. In the result, all the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed. The Award dated 29.5.1995 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand is quashed and set-aside. However, it maybe observed that the insurance company, which has already paid the amount of Rs. 7,500/- to each of the claimants towards 'No Fault Liability' will not be entitled to recover this amount either from the owner of the vehicle or from the claimants..Appeals allowed *******