No.2 and who claims himself to be eyewitness and Chandrashekhar Mandal, claimants’ witness No.3, who lodged the FIR have stated that deceased Jagbandhu was an employee of the owner of the offending vehicle and at the time of accident also deceased Jagbandhu and other 4 persons were returning in the said offending vehicle. Contrary to this, in the FIR (Ex.A1) and the morgue report (Ex.A2), which were lodged by Chandrashekhar Mandal, claimants’ witness No.3, it is mentioned that at the time of accident, the deceased and other persons were going in the said offending vehicle for selling their vegetables. There is no mention in the FIR and the morgue report that Bipad Bhanjan, claimants’ witness No.2 had witnessed the accident. Respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle has also not been examined before the Tribunal. He was the best person who could state whether the deceased was his employee or not. Looking to the above, in my considered view, the Tribunal has rightly held that the deceased was travelling in the goods vehicle as a passenger. Therefore, it appears that there was a breach of the insurance policy on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has fastened the liability only on the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle.
