JUDGMENT Hari Lal Agrawal and Abhiram Singh, JJ. This appeal arises out of an Award of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, dated 18.2.1977 by which a sum of Rs. 36,000 has been awarded to the respondents on account of the death of one Ram Chandra Sabu aged about 34 years who was traveling on truck No. B.R.V. 4219 and dated on 8.9.1973 when the said truck met with an accident. 2. For the point that has been raised on behalf of the appellant, it is not necessary to state the other facts which have been indicated in the Award for giving the amount of compensation. The point is as to whether the claimants ate entitled to any compensation at all in view of the provisions contained in the proviso (i) to sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Shortly the Act) and Rule 87 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules. The proviso covers the 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 him in that course. On this basis it was contended' that the liability for the death or the bodily injury of a third person i.e., an outsider is not permitted under the terms of the Statute. To be more specific under Rules 87 of the rules which are framed under Section 41 of the Act, no person is to be carried in a vehicle other than a bona fide employee of an owner or a hirer of the vehicle. It has not been stated in the claim application that the deceased was a hirer of the vehicle rather according to the Tribunal the deceased was an earner of monthly income of about Rs. 300 per month. It was therefore, rightly contended that no compensation should have been awarded to the claimants for the accident in question as the deceased was an illegal occupant of the vehicle in question. 300 per month. It was therefore, rightly contended that no compensation should have been awarded to the claimants for the accident in question as the deceased was an illegal occupant of the vehicle in question. We find full support for the above proposition from a Bench decision of Madras High Court in the case of Omarayanan v. Madras State Palm Gur Sammelan and another (1974 ACJ 479) where it was held that a passengers carried by a lorry will not be covered by an insurance policy unless he is proved to be a passenger travelling by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment. There is no provision in the Act to protect such a person. It appears that in the State of Madras, similar to that obtaining in this State were framed under the Act prohibiting travel by any person as a passenger in a goods vehicle. On behalf of the claimants, however, reliance was placed upon the case of Pardi Zankhri Nes Karanj Group Dndh and Sak Bhaji Sahkari Mandli Limited v Govindji Bhagwanji and other, (1977 ACJ 270), which is a case of the Gujarat High Court, wherein the learned single Judge, while dealing with the case of an accident of a passenger travelling in a truck of the Co-operative Society who had sustained injuries due to accident, held the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. We find from this report that the deceased was travelling in the truck as he was going with his milk for the purposes of having laboratory test at a daily for the purpose of ascertaining the fat contents thereof and respondent No. 1 was a member of the appellant Co-operative Society and he was supplying the milk to the Society. The deceased, therefore, was not completely an outsider in the prohibited category but was an authorised occupant. Apart from this fact, the, contentions which have been raised before us were not advanced there and, perhaps, rightly in view of the fact that the deceased was an authority is quite distinguishable and will have no application with the fact of the present case. Apart from this fact, the, contentions which have been raised before us were not advanced there and, perhaps, rightly in view of the fact that the deceased was an authority is quite distinguishable and will have no application with the fact of the present case. It is not necessary to travel far and wide as the point is squarely covered by a Bench decision of our own High Court in the case of Sardar Mohan Singh Bedi v. Mano Maya Thappa and others ( 1972 ACJ 174 ), where a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle was killed in an accident and the Insurance Company was held not liable to pay the compensation. 3. Although this point was taken by the appellant in the written statement but for some reason or the other it does not appear to have been noticed by the Tribunal in its Award. On that account, however, this legal question cannot be shut out from being pressed in this Court. 4. In the result, for the above reasons, this appeal must succeed and it is accordingly allowed. The awards of the claims tribunal is hereby set aside; However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we shall leave the parties to bear their own costs.