Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Learned counsel for appellant has made twofold contentions. One is that respondent insurance company has charged premium for two, labourer and driver, and injured-claimant was engaged by the driver to unload the goods and therefore it could not have been exonerated of its liability to indemnify the appellant-owner for payment of compenation. Second contnetion is that the claimant himself in his claim petition prayed for payment of compensation of Rs.92,000/- therefore the Tribunal has erred in law in making out a case in favour of the claimant by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,54,213/-. 2. Shri Praveen Jain, learned counsel for respondent insurance company, has opposed the appeal and argued that it was never a case of the appellant-owner before the insurance company that the injured-claimant was there or engaged as labourer. In fact, the appellant-owner did not appear in witness box. It was argued that contrarily their plea in the written statement/reply to the claim petition was that the driver had no legal authority to carry the passengers in the vehicle, but no such plea sought to be set up before this Court that he was engaged as labourer, was taken in the said reply. 3. Shri Ambrish Vashishtha, learned counsel for claimant-respondent cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagappa vs. Guru Dayal Singh and Others – 2003(1) TAC 241, and argued that even if due to wrong legal advice or otherwise, the claimant may have claimed Rs.92,000/- as total sum to be payable as compenation, but that would not be binding on the Tribunal as per the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal has accepted income of the injured at Rs.2000/- per month and, after applying multiplier of 16 in view of age of the injured, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,53,600/- for permanent disability. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I do not find any infirmity in the award. Merely becasue the claimant in the claim petition has prayed for lesser quantum of compensation, it does not mean that the Tribunal on the basis of evidence could not have arrived at correct sum payable as compensation. Moreover, the plea that the injured was engaged as labourer by the appellant-owner or the driver, has not been substantiated either beofre the Tribunal or before this Court. Moreover, the plea that the injured was engaged as labourer by the appellant-owner or the driver, has not been substantiated either beofre the Tribunal or before this Court. I therefore do not find any infirmity in the impugned award. The appeal is therefore dismissed.