It would be clear from the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred as the truck started sliding down in the 'ghat' section. In the circumstances, the natural reaction of the claimant-appellant was to jump from the truck, in order to save himself. However, unfortunately in doing so, he met with an accident resulting in grievous injuries to both of his legs, on being crushed by the wheels of the truck. It is clear therefore that in the circumstances, the driver of the truck was not either discreet in changing gear in time or the truck was not in a condition as to proceed and climb the upgradient on the 'ghat' section. In either case, claimant-appellant could not be held responsible for the accident. The responsibility of the accident squarely lay on the driver and vicariously on the owner of the offending vehicle. Since the truck was insured by the respondent No. 3 and the appellant-claimant was a third party, it hardly matters as to whether he was travelling in the goods carrier either by payment of fare or otherwise so as to result in breach of policy condition. The third party risk has to be covered by the respondent No. 3 as has been laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh 2000 ACJ 1 (SC). Therefore, the liability of reimbursement of amount of compensation lies on respondent No. 3. In the circumstances, it is clear that the appellant-claimant suffered permanent disablement on account of rashness or negligence on the part of the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, he is entitled to get compensation. The learned Tribunal held that the claimant was travelling in the said truck. It was further held in para 11 of the impugned award that in the 'ghat' section while changing the gear, the truck started sliding down the slope and during that claimant jumped from the truck and sustained injuries on being crushed by the wheels of the truck. It was, therefore, held that there was no negligence on the part of the driver and, therefore, the driver and consequently the owner were not liable for the injuries caused in the said accident. It was further held by the learned Tribunal that the claimant-appellant was travelling in the said truck in breach of the policy condition and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 insurance company was also not liable to pay the amount of compensation.