JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, the owner of the vehicle being the appellant, and the challenge is only with respect to the direction of the Tribunal directing the owner to pay the assessed amount of compensation and exonerating the insurance company from the liability. Since the claimant has not filed any appeal against the quantum of compensation, we are not concerned with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the vehicle had been taken on hire and the claimant was travelling in that vehicle when the accident took place and as a result of which the claimant suffered the injuries, the insurance company would not be liable to pay the compensation. The learned Counsel for the appellant in assailing the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal contends that the Tribunal did not bear in mind the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability in question. It has been found by the Tribunal that the claimant was travelling in the mini truck bearing number ORG 6291 which had been taken on hire by his master for transportation of some goods and the claim-ant on behalf his master was travelling in the vehicle with the goods from Balugaon to Khurda when the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. 3. The short question which arises for consideration, therefore, is whether in such circumstances, the liability of the insurance company ceases or the insurer would still be liable to indemnify the owner, within the ambit of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under Sub-section (2) (b) of Section 95 of the Act, the policy of insurance shall cover any liability in respect of any one accident upto the limits provided therein, where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of, in pursuance of, a contract of employment. The expression "contract of employment" points to a person being employed to do something or to carry out some thing for another person. It has the element of rendition of some service in one shape or another for the employer. The expression "contract of employment" points to a person being employed to do something or to carry out some thing for another person. It has the element of rendition of some service in one shape or another for the employer. The injured need not be under a contract of employment with the insured so long as he was in the insured vehicle by reason of or in pursuance of his contract of employment. Even the owner of goods, who hires a vehicle for carrying his goods and accompanies the goods in the vehicle, has been held to be a passenger in the vehicle for reward, within the meaning of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, for the tortious liability of the owner towards him roust be covered by the insurance policy, as has been decided by the Bombay High Court in the case of Nasibdar Suba Fakir Vs. Adhia and Company and Others. The same view has been expressed by the Karnataka High Court in the case of United In Ha Insurance Co. Limited, Bangalore v. Gangamma and Anr. AIR 1981 KANT 261. A Bench decision of this Court in the case of The Oriental Fire Insurance Co. Limited v. Srimati Naravani Bai and Ors. 56 (1983) CLT 41, has followed the aforesaid view of Bombay and Karnataka High Courts while differing with the contrary view taken by the Punjab High Court in the case of Parkash Vati and Others Vs. The Delhi Dayal Bagh Dairy Ltd., and the Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Mutual General Insurance Society Ltd. Vs. Manzoor Ashan and Others, and the Bench decision of this Court is binding on me. But here in this case, the matter stands on a still higher footing, namely admittedly the claimant was under a contract of employment with his master who had hired the vehicle for carrying his goods and the claimant while travelling in the vehicle along with the goods of his master, sustained the injuries in question and obviously, therefore, the claimant must be held to be on the vehicle "in course of his employment", and consequently, the liability is covered by the insurance policy. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company cannot be sustained and it is directed that the compensation amount has to be paid by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (respondent No. 2 in this appeal). 4. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is modified as stated earlier. There will be no order as to costs.