Judgment :- Sengottuvelan, J. — 1. One Abdul Jabbar, the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondents 2 to 7, lost his life in a fatal road accident about 12’o clock midnight on 2nd October, 1975, on the Hosur Krishnagiri Road while he was travelling in the lorry MYD. 3425 belonging to the first appellant and insured with the second appellant. 2. The case of the respondents 1 to 7, who are petitioners before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 20 of 1977, under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is as follows. The deceased Abdul Jabbar was a sheep merchant and was aged about 50 years at the time of his death. The deceased was travelling in the lorry MYD. 3435 from Bangalore. The lorry was driven by the 8th respondent, herein, and when the lorry was proceeding near Kurubarabelli at about 12’o clock in the midnight on 2nd October, 1975 due to the rash and negligent driving at high speed of the lorry, it capsized and Abdul Jabbar who sat in the cabin met with instantaneous death. The accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the 8th respondent herein. The respondents 1 to 7 claimed compensation of Rs. 30,000 before the Tribunal. The driver of the lorry remained ex parte. In the counter statement filed by the lorry owner, who is the first appellant herein before the Tribunal, the allegation that the lorry was driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner was denied. He attributed the accident to the mechanical defect in the lorry. He also contended that the driver was directed not to carry any passenger in the lorry and as such the driver had acted beyond the course of employment and taken the deceased passenger in the vehicle for which the lorry owner cannot be held liable. In any event, the deceased was not a fare-paying passenger and the Insurance Company is also liable in terms of the insurance policy. It was also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. In any event, the deceased was not a fare-paying passenger and the Insurance Company is also liable in terms of the insurance policy. It was also contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. In a separate counter-statement, the Insurance company, the second appellant herein, denied the allegation that the lorry was insured so as to cover the liability of the deceased passenger and the age, income and occupation of the deceased passenger were also disputed by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company also contended that in any event, the compensation claimed is high and exaggerated. On these pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following points for determination: "1. Whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry MYD. 3425 by the first respondent? 2. What is the amount of compensation to be awarded?" 3. On behalf of the claimants the first respondent was examined as P.W.1, and P.W.2 (sic) one C. Venkatappan, an eye witness to the accident was also examined on behalf of the claimants to prove that the lorry was driven by the driver, the 8th respondent herein, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of the deceased. The claimants also filed the certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.164 of 1976, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, in which the driver admitted his guilt before the criminal Court and was duly convicted and sentenced on the charge of rash and negligent driving. On this evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry MYD.3425 by the driver. In the grounds of appeal the finding of the Tribunal that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver is not challenged. The main grounds taken by the appellants in this civil miscellaneous appeal are as follows: ” 1. The Tribunal erred in not taking note of the provisions (?) (c) and (ii) of section 95(1) (b), which state that there need not be any policy to cover any liability in relation to a person carried in a goods vehicle. 2. The Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased being carried in the lorry was not a third party on whose behalf a claim could be preferred against the Insurance Company. 3. 2. The Tribunal ought to have held that the deceased being carried in the lorry was not a third party on whose behalf a claim could be preferred against the Insurance Company. 3. The Tribunal ought to have held that there is no privity of contract between the claimants and the Insurance Company. 4. In any event, the compensation awarded is excessive. " 4. Hence the liability of the owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company in respect of the death of a third party passenger in the lorry MYD. 3425 will have to be decided. In this case there is evidence to show that the deceased was the owner of the goods carried in the abovesaid lorry. Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act dealing with the requirements of policies and the limits of liability is set out hereunder. ”In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer (or by a Cooperative Society allowed under section 108 to transact the business of an insurer), and (b) Insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Provided that a policy shall not be required — (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, in respect of the death of or bodily injury to, any such employee — (a) engaged in driving the vehicle; or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle; or (c) if it is a goods vehicle, being carried in the vehicle; or (ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises." Under proviso (1) to section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death of a person or a passenger being carried in the vehicle if it is a goods vehicle except in so far as is necessary to meet the requirements in relation to a liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Rule 261 of the Madras Motor Rules is as follows: — "No person shall be carried in the cab of the goods vehicle beyond the number of which there is seating accommodation at the rate of 38 centimetres measured along the seat, excluding the space reserved for the driver, for each person and not more than six persons in all in addition to the driver shall be carried in any goods vehicle.". Relying on this rule an argument is advanced that there is no prohibition of carrying of passengers in the cabin of the lorry within the prescribed limits. 5. Relying on this rule an argument is advanced that there is no prohibition of carrying of passengers in the cabin of the lorry within the prescribed limits. 5. In the case reported in The Commonwealth Assurance Company Limited v. V P. Rahim Khau Sahib and others1 a single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that in the case of passengers carried in a goods vehicle the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only in respect of the death of or bodily injury to such passengers who are carried in the vehicle by reason of or in pursuance of the contract of employment. An owner of goods accompanying the goods in a truck cannot be said to be travelling in the truck by virtue of any such contract In the case reported in South India Insurance Company Limited v. P. Subramaniam and others2 to which one of us was a party, this Court came to the conclusion that in the case of an owner of he goods accompanying the goods there is no contract of employment between the owner of the goods and the owner of the lorry. It was also held that even if it is taken that the words ‘contract of employment’ referred to in the second proviso to section 95 (1) (b) would include not only the employee of the insured but also the employees of the owner of the goods, an owner of the goods travelling in the lorry cannot be said to be doing so by reason of or in pursuance of any contract of employment, for, there is no such employment as such a case. Taking this view the terms of the Insurance policy were held not to extend to any liability arising out of the owner of the goods travelling in the lorry and the Insurance company were held to be not liable to pay compensation. 6. In the case reported in Pushpabai Purushotham Udeshi and others v. Mrs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company and others3 the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the claim for compensation in respect of a passenger permitted to travel with the Manager of the company in the car which met with an accident resulting in the death of the passenger. 6. In the case reported in Pushpabai Purushotham Udeshi and others v. Mrs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company and others3 the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the claim for compensation in respect of a passenger permitted to travel with the Manager of the company in the car which met with an accident resulting in the death of the passenger. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh found that there is no evidence to show that the owner of the vehicle was aware that the passenger was taken by the Manager and that under the the circumstances he owner cannot be held liable for the tortions act committed by his servant. The High Court found that the car was going from Nagpur to Pandhurna on the business of the company and it may also be that the Manager of the owner’s car, was also going on the business the owner and it may also be that he had the implied authority to drive the vehicle. Having agreed with the contention of the claimants, the Madhya Pradesh High Court came to the conclusion that there were no pleadings or material on record to establish that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle either on some business of the owner of the vehicle or under any ostensible authority from them to their Manager to take the deceased as a passenger in the vehicle. A reference was made in the judgment of the Supreme Court to the observation by Lord Justice Denning in the case reported in Young v. Edward Box and Company Limited4 as follows — ‘.....the first question is to see whether the servant was liable; if the answer is yes, the second question is to see whether the employer must shoulder the servant’s liability. So far as the driver is concerned, his liability depends on whether the plaintiff was on the lorry with his consent or not.....The next question is how far the employers are liable for their servant’s conduct. In order to make the employer liable to the passengers it is not sufficient that they should be liable for their servants negligence in driving. They must also be responsible for, his conduct in giving the man a lift. In order to make the employer liable to the passengers it is not sufficient that they should be liable for their servants negligence in driving. They must also be responsible for, his conduct in giving the man a lift. If the servant has been forbidden or is unauthorised, to give anyone a lift, then no doubt the passenger is a trespasser on the lorry so far as the owners are concerned; but that is not of itself an answer to the claim......In my opinion, when the owner of the lorry sends his servant on a journey with it, thereby putting the servant in a position not only to drive it, but also to give people a lift in it, then he is answerable for the manner in which the servant conducts himself on the journey not only in the driving of it but also in giving lifts in it, provided, of course, that in so doing the servant is acting in the course of his employment. Lord Justice Denning concluded by observing that the passenger was therefore, a trespasser, so far as the employers were concerned, but nevertheless the driver was acting in the course of his employment, and that is sufficient to make the employer liable. Relying on the decision and on the ostensible authority of the manager as a licencee to permit the deceased to travel with him, the Supreme Court held that the manager was acting in the course of bis employment in giving leave to the deceased to travel with him and that the owner of vehicle is liable. In deciding the liability of the Insurance Company, the Supreme Court after referring to section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Act LVI of 1969, held that the insurance cover is not available to passengers in a case like the present one and that the proviso to sub-section (ii) provides that a policy shall not be required except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises. 7. 7. In the case reported in K.R Sivagami, proprietor Rajendran Tourist v. Mahabobh Niss Bi and others1 a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us was a party, in dealing with a case of a driver of a taxi carrying more than the permitted load of passengers which is contrary to the conditions of permit under which the vehicle was allowed to be used as a tourist taxi, held that the non-observance of the rules relating to the number of passengers to be carried can only be said to be an improper performance of the driver’s duty. Even assuming that the permit conditions not to take more than the permitted number of passengers is a prohibition, limitation or restriction, that relates only to the manner of performance of the driver’s duties in the course of his employment and that cannot in any way limit the sphere of employment. Therefore, the carrying of two excess passengers by the driver of the taxi will only amount to an improper performance of his duties as a driver of the taxi and therefore it cannot be taken to be outside the sphere of his employment. It held that the owner of the taxi is vicariously liable for the tort committed by the driver of his taxi. In United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, Madurai v. M.S. Durairaj and others2 this Bench had occasion to consider a case where a senior clerk of the State Bank of India, Kodaikanal, while he was returning from Madurai to Kodaikanal in a car MDA 1194, met with an accident resulting in injuries to the said clerk. In regard to the claim for compensation by the injured clerk an objection was taken by the Insurance company that the injured was carried for hire which is against the terms of the Insurance policy and as such the insurer was not liable. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Pushpabai Purushotham Udeshi and others v. Messrs Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Company and another3 referred to supra, this Court negatived the liability of the insurance company. 8. Adopting the principles laid down in the decisions cited above there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the driver was acting in the course of his employment in carrying the deceased and as such the owner of the lorry is liable. 9. 8. Adopting the principles laid down in the decisions cited above there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the driver was acting in the course of his employment in carrying the deceased and as such the owner of the lorry is liable. 9. But as far as the Insurance Company isconcerned,the terms of the policy will have to prevail. The policy is marked as Exhibit B-1. On a perusal of the policy it is seen that it is nothing but a reproduction of the terms set out in section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Following the view expressed in the decisions referred to above interpreting similar clauses in the policy of insurance, we have no hesitation in holding that the second appellant, Insurance Company is not liable since the liability in respect of the passenger in the lorry has been specifically excluded by the terms of the policy. 10. In the grounds of appeal it is also stated that the amount awarded is excessive. We have the evidence of P.W.1, the first petitioner before the Tribunal, to show that the deceased was doing sheep skin business and was earning Rs. 400 per month. According to P.W.1, he was paying her a sum of Rs. 300 per month for family expenses. The deceased was aged 50 years at the time of his death. On the materials the Tribunal by computing the lifespan of the deceased at 65 years and on that basis the deceased could have contributed Rs. 1,200 per annum to the family arrived at the amount of compensation at Rs. 18,000 towards the loss of support. Further a sum of Rs. 4,000 was added towards the loss of expectation of life. Deducting a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards uncertainties of life a sum of Rs. 20,000 was awarded as compensation. The assessment of compensation by the Tribunal is not shown to be wrong under the circumstances of the case. Hence the plea that the quantum of compensation awarded is excessive will have to be negatived. 11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal in so far as the first appellant, viz., the owner of the lorry is concerned, to dismissed and the appeal by the second appellant, viz., the Origent Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, is allowed. However there will be no order as to costs.