S. R. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) SUBJECT-MATTER of impugnment in the instant appeal is the award dated 31. 1. 1987 rendered by motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M. A. C. Case No. 23 of 1986, Ram Autar v. Ram Prakash whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 62,400/-together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent with effect from 6. 5. 1986, which is the date on which the claim petition was filed, till the date of actual payment of the compensation to the claimants with a further direction that the entire amount of compensation would be payable by the appellant insurance company. ( 2 ) FOR sensitive appreciation of the controversy involved in the case, necessary facts may be delineated. Claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased Ashok Kumar who, as held by the Tribunal, had got concussed in the accident which occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, i. e. , truck No. UPC 3108 being driven on the fateful day by pappu, respondent No. 4, who, as further held by the Tribunal, had a valid driving licence. Ram prakash, respondent No. 3, is admittedly the owner of the vehicle. The claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-as against which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 62,400/ -. The finding that the accident took place as a result of actionable rash and negligent driving and the finding that the driver had a valid driving licence were rightly not challenged by the counsel appearing for the appellant. The challenge has been telescoped to the only submission made by Mr. A. B. Saran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the appellant insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation beyond the statutory limit postulated by Section 95 (2) (b) of the Act. Mr. R. P. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents, canvassed that the insurance company was rightly fastened with the liability to pay the entire amount of compensation in that, urged the learned counsel, the policy was a comprehensive one, indemnifying the liability of the insured beyond statutory limits. ( 3 ) I have bestowed my sedulous consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. The appeal, in my opinion, has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. ( 3 ) I have bestowed my sedulous consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. The appeal, in my opinion, has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Section 95 of the Act stipulates requirements of policy and limits of liability of insurer. According to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance may be a policy which is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer or by a co-operative society allowed under Section 108 to transact the business of an insurer and insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2) (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. It is evident that the liability of the insurer under Clause (i) aforesaid is in respect of death of, or bodily injury to, any person or damage to any property of a third party not being a passenger while Clause (ii) is attracted in the case of death of, or bodily injury to, any passenger of a public service vehicle which term, in my opinion, includes a goods vehicle. ( 4 ) THE proviso (ii) to Sub-section (1), however, carves out an exception that a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any person 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 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. The expression in which passengers are carried occurring in proviso (ii) no doubt reasonably suggests that in order to exclude the applicability of the exception carved out by proviso (ii), the vehicle ought not be a vehicle with permit to carry passengers. The expression in which passengers are carried occurring in proviso (ii) no doubt reasonably suggests that in order to exclude the applicability of the exception carved out by proviso (ii), the vehicle ought not be a vehicle with permit to carry passengers. In other words, where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried, a policy as comprehended by Sub-section (1) shall be necessary inasmuch as rule 92 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, provides for and permits the carriage of the owner of goods hiring the vehicle or the bona fide employee of the hirer of the goods vehicle, such vehicle too, for the purposes of Sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be a vehicle in which passengers are carried vis-a-vis the owner of the goods and/or his employee accompanying the goods. A goods vehicle, therefore, also comes within the purview of a public service vehicle within the meaning of the expression used in Sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 95 (1) in respect of the death of or bodily injury to the owner of the goods or his employee accompanying the goods being carried in the vehicle for hire or reward. A division Bench of this court in Abdul Razak v. Sharifunnisa, 1984 ACJ 44 (Allahabad), has ruled as under: (Emphasis added ). . . Rule 92 makes it amply clear that goods vehicle is authorised to carry hirer or an employee of the hirer of the vehicle whenever a person hires a goods vehicle for transporting his goods from one place to the other, he himself or his employee is entitled to be carried in the vehicle under the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. ( 5 ) IN T. M. Renukappa v. Fahmida 1980 ACJ 86 (Karnataka), a Division Bench has held that the owner of goods travelling in goods vehicle along with his goods is also covered by third party risk and in case of death of the owner, the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, therefore, the exception carved out in the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of section 95 would cover the owner of goods or his bona fide employee travelling in a goods vehicle taken on hire or for reward, etc. ( 6 ) IN my opinion, therefore, the exception carved out in the second proviso to Sub-section (1) of section 95 would cover the owner of goods or his bona fide employee travelling in a goods vehicle taken on hire or for reward, etc. It may be observed that the expression in pursuance of a contract of employment was construed by the Division Bench of Abdul Razaks case, 1984 ACJ 44 (Allahabad), to mean the contract of employment between the owner of the goods and his employee accompanying the goods in a goods vehicle taken on payment of hire or reward, etc. ( 7 ) NOW I proceed to scan the submission of Mr. A. B. Saran vis-a-vis the scope and ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act. ( 8 ) SECTION 95 (2) of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time and in so far as it is relevant, reads as under: (2) Subject to the proviso to Sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely (a) Where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees, in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle. (b) 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, (i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all; (ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the deceased boarded the truck on hire in carrying himself and the goods, namely, two bags of wheat, beddings and cot, etc. , from Shikarpur to his place of service at Khurja, which finding, in my opinion, is not one to be censured as vitiated in any manner. In view of this finding, urged the learned counsel for the appellant, the liability of the insurance company would not cross the Rubicon of Rs. , from Shikarpur to his place of service at Khurja, which finding, in my opinion, is not one to be censured as vitiated in any manner. In view of this finding, urged the learned counsel for the appellant, the liability of the insurance company would not cross the Rubicon of Rs. 15,000/- as provided by Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b.) of Sub-section (2) of Section 95. The submission of the learned counsel would have commended itself for my acceptance but for the reasons that the vehicle being a goods vehicle, the liability of the insurer would be governed by Clause (a) and not by Clause (b) (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 95. The argument that Clause (a) is applicable only in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver) of the owner of vehicle cannot be lent a veneer of countenance. The clause applies also in respect of death of, or bodily injury to, persons who are passengers within the meaning of rule 92 of the Rules, that is to say, it applies to the owner of the goods or his employee, travelling in the goods vehicle. It may also be observed that even according to the policy, the liability extends to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- as would be clear from cover note of the policy but it cannot have the effect of reducing the extent of statutory lability. It would also be apposite to observe here that the insurance company did not file any written statement to put forth its case that it was not liable to indemnify the owner of vehicle beyond its statutory limit/liability. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 acj 270 (SC), it has been held by the Supreme Court that it is open to the insured to take a policy covering higher risk and "where the insurance company concerned wishes to take a defence in claim petition that its liability is not in excess of the statutory liability, it should file a copy of the insurance policy along with its defence. " ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed in the circumstances, with costs on parties. .