JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the Award dated 21st October, 1983 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhabua in Claim Case No. 19/81, thereby rejecting the claim petition. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the truck bearing registration No. CPF 8081 was owned by respondent No. 2 (Amritlal). At the relevant time, it was driven by Hayatkhan (deceased). This Hayatkhan drove the truck rashly and negligently as a result of which truck turned turtle. Hayatkhan also died in this accident. In this accident, one Narwarsingh also died and the appellant-claimant suffered injuries. He was also sitting in this truck. The Tribunal found that the truck was not driven rashly and negligently and on this ground the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard Sri S.S. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri A.H. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3. None appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4. In this accident one Narwarsingh has also died. The legal representatives of Narwarsingh had preferred claim petition. The claim of L.Rs. of Narwarsingh was also dismissed. M.A. No. 345/83--Ladkhibai and Ors. v. Jatonbibi and Ors. was filed by the L.Rs. of Narwarsingh. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal of these L.Rs. by order dated 18.9.1987. 5. I find that the case of the present appellant is in no way different that the case of the deceased Narwarsingh. At the relevant time both (deceased and appellant) were sitting in the truck involved in the accident. The Division Bench in the aforesaid appeal awarded the compensation of Rs. 45,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. However, the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) was not held liable. As regards the liability about injuries, the Division Bench held as under: Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants on the other hand, has placed reliance on a Full Bench Decision of this Court in Harishankar Tiwari v. Jagru and Ors. However, the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) was not held liable. As regards the liability about injuries, the Division Bench held as under: Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants on the other hand, has placed reliance on a Full Bench Decision of this Court in Harishankar Tiwari v. Jagru and Ors. 1987 ACJ 1 in which it has been held that the Insurance Company is liable to cover the risk of a hirer/agent or his employees travelling with the goods in a goods vehicle under proviso (ii) of Clause (b) of Section 95(1) as a passenger carried for reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. But that decision, in our opinion, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the instant case, it is not possible to hold on the basis of the evidence adduced that the deceased was travelling in the truck for safe carriage of the goods in the vehicle. It has been proved that the truck was hired for carrying the goods belonging to the deceased. The deceased and Lokendra Singh travelled in the truck consequent upon the truck driven agreeing to give them a lift on charging Rs. 5/-. In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 124/81, which was also disposed of by the Full Bench decision aforesaid, the policy itself has specified that six persons can be carried in the vehicle in question apart from the driver. No such stipulation is made in the policy pertaining to the instant case. On the contrary, it has been stated therein that the policy does not cover use for the conveyance of passengers for hire or reward. The truck in question, therefore, cannot be termed as a vehicle in which the passengers are carried for hire or reward within the meaning of the provision (ii) of Clause (b) of Section 95(1) and, therefore, no statutory requirement of coverage of risk of the passenger like the deceased travelling in the truck in question can be presumed. Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants submitted that whether or not the driver was authorised to give lift to the deceased, the owner of the truck shall be vicariously liable. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the driver of the truck was prohibited by the owner from giving lift to anyone in the truck while driving it on his master's business. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the driver of the truck was prohibited by the owner from giving lift to anyone in the truck while driving it on his master's business. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Nara-yanlal and Anr. v. Rukminibai and Anr. reported in 1979 ACJ 261, in which it has been held that the act of a servant employed to drive a vehicle in giving lift to a person in disregard of statutory rule or prohibition while driving the vehicle in execution of the owner's business is an act for which the owner is vicariously liable. 6. In the circumstances, I find that the claim of the appellant was wrongly disallowed. The finding is, thus, reversed. As regards quantum of damages, I find that looking to the injuries, the amount of Rs. 7,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till realisation shall be just and reasonable compensation. 7. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is accordingly set aside. Instead, the claim petition is allowed to this extent that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Jatonbibi and Amritlal shall pay jointly and severally the amount of Rs. 7,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 19.6.1981 till realisation. The claim against respondent No. 3 is, however, disallowed and the claim petition against Insurance Company is dismissed. 8. Parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs of the claim petition as well as this appeal as incurred. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned immediately.