N. L. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) THIS first appeal from order under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the judgment and award dated 30. 9. 1981 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 22 of 1975. ( 2 ) THE claim for an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- was filed by Millo, widow of the deceased Matru lal, with claimant No. 2, Ram Krishna, son and four other claimants, daughters of the deceased. Matru Lal had died in an accident on 29. 11. 1974 at about 1. 30 a. m. ( 3 ) THE deceased Matru Lal at the time of the accident was aged about 30 years, who was dealing in the business of goats. He was resident of village Kothipur, P. S. Phaphund, Distt. Etawah. He was travelling along with the goats in truck No. UPI 973 from Auraiya in District Etawah to kanpur. At about 1. 30 a. m. on 29. 11. 1974 between the villages Bara and Raniya, P. S. Akbarpur, district Kanpur, the truck in question by which the deceased was travelling with his goats met with an accident with another truck. On the truck on which the deceased was carrying his goats, some wooden planks were extending on its outer sides. When the accident took place by dashing of another truck coming from the other side, the wooden planks fell down on the head of the deceased, the result was that Matru Lal received serious injuries on his head and died on account of the said injuries. ( 4 ) IN the claim petition, it was stated that the driver of the truck was negligent and rash with the result the accident was caused and Matru Lal died. It is noteworthy that the other truck with which the accident took place could not be noticed as the said truck had fled away after the accident in the night. The truck number and the owner of the said vehicle were not known to the claimants. The compensation claimed by the claimants was Rs. 80,000/-for the loss of earning in the rest span of life, loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000 and mental agony and hardship to the claimants Rs. 30,000/-; totalling Rs. 1,20,000/ -. ( 5 ) THE claim was contested by the opposite party. The compensation claimed by the claimants was Rs. 80,000/-for the loss of earning in the rest span of life, loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000 and mental agony and hardship to the claimants Rs. 30,000/-; totalling Rs. 1,20,000/ -. ( 5 ) THE claim was contested by the opposite party. The accident is admitted and it is also admitted that Matru Lal died as a result of the accident. The owner of the truck denied that the accident occurred due to any negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the truck. On the other hand, it was pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the other truck and the claim petition is bad on account of non-joinder of the other truck owner and its driver. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal awarded Rs. 28,800/-with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation recoverable from the owner of the truck No. UPI 973 by which the deceased was travelling with his goats to Kanpur. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against the opposite party No. 3, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident occurred on account of the contributory negligence and rash driving of the other truck which collided with the truck of the appellant. He submitted that the non-joinder of the owner of the truck by which the accident was caused vitiates the judgment and award of the court below. The last and important question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether the award against the owner of the vehicle was just and legal and the refusal to give award against the insurance company was bad in law. He submitted that the insurer was legally liable to pay the damages and compensation in case of such accident. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal considered this aspect whether there was any necessity for impleading the other track owner and its driver as the opposite party in the claim petition or not. The reasoning for holding that non-impleadment of the other truck which after the accident during the night had fled away would not render the proceedings illegal in any manner. It cannot be expected to do something impossible which a normal person cannot do. The reasoning for holding that non-impleadment of the other truck which after the accident during the night had fled away would not render the proceedings illegal in any manner. It cannot be expected to do something impossible which a normal person cannot do. In the night when the accident took place, it was in fact midnight of 29. 11. 1974. It cannot be expected that the claimant would give number of the vehicle and its owners name and the drivers name who had fled away. To expect such facts and allegations in a claim petition would be asking to do something generally not possible and on that count, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the proceedings taken cannot be held to be illegal in any manner. ( 9 ) SO far as the second point urged by the learned counsel that the accident took place on account of the contributory negligence of the other truck which dashed against the truck in which the deceased had travelled with goats is devoid of merit. It is admitted from the record of the claim petition that the planks were protruding from the sides of the truck in which the deceased was travelling which needed special care for the driver to take as something which was protruding beyond the body of the truck was likely to come in contact with other vehicles if the truck was not driven cautiously. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded as compensation could not be fully recovered from the appellant alone but it should have been recovered from the owner of the other truck. No doubt the Tribunal itself arrived at a conclusion that the truck was not driven at a very high speed. The speed of the truck was very moderate at the time when the accident took place but it cannot be overlooked that due caution and care which was required to have been taken by the driver of the truck was not taken which appears to be the reason for the accident resulting in the death of the deceased Matru Lal. The appellant, thus, cannot be given any relief on the basis of this argument. The appellant, thus, cannot be given any relief on the basis of this argument. ( 10 ) THE main important and forceful argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly the vehicle in question in which the goats were carried by the deceased was insured vehicle with the respondent No. 7 and the court below was wrong in not fastening the liability of the recovery of compensation on the insurance company. ( 11 ) IT is not disputed that the truck in question in which the deceased was travelling with his goats was insured with the respondent No. 7. This court has to decide the question whether the owner of the goats who accompanied them in the same truck, which met with an accident and the owner died, the truck owner would be liable to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased or the insurance company with whom the vehicle was insured. In order to decide this question, it would be necessary to examine the provision of Section 95 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is quoted as under: 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. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 that in case of goods vehicle, the policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident, instead of death or bodily injury to the employees other than a driver not exceeding six in number being carried in the vehicle. He submitted that only employees other than the driver and that too up to six in number are covered by the policy. He further submits that the aforesaid provision does not contemplate the covering of the risk of a passenger who may be travelling in the goods vehicle. He submitted that the truck was meant for carrying goods. The deceased was not an employee of the truck owner. Thus, it was submitted that the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the death of Matru Lal and thus, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. He submitted that the truck was meant for carrying goods. The deceased was not an employee of the truck owner. Thus, it was submitted that the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the death of Matru Lal and thus, the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant cited decision of our court in Abdul Razak v. Sharifunnisa 1984 ACJ 44 (Allahabad ). The Division Bench of our court relying on the second part of the proviso (ii) observed: coming to the second part of the proviso (ii), it is necessary to ascertain the meaning and scope of the expression by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment occurring in proviso (ii ). According to the learned counsel for the insurance company, the expression means that the passenger being carried in the vehicle should be there in pursuance of a contract of employment either with the owner of the goods or with the insured person. The expression contract of employment means a contract of service. If that be so, an employee of the insured who is owner of the vehicle if being carried in the vehicle would be covered by a policy as contemplated by proviso (ii ). This would be contrary to proviso (i) which expressly lays down that no policy shall be required to cover employees of the insured person. This interpretation, therefore, cannot be accepted. Since the employee of the insured person is ruled out, it appears that the second part of the proviso referred to a person who may be in the employment of the owner of the goods or any other person who may have entered into contract with the owner of the vehicle. Thus, if a person hires a vehicle for the transport of his goods and his employee accompanies the goods in the vehicle, he would be covered by the expression by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment and his risk will be covered by compulsory policy. It is not disputed rather is admitted that Matru Lal carried his goats in the truck in question at the time when the accident took place and the liability of insurance company was fully on its account of the insurance policy taken by the owner of the truck in question. ( 13 ) MR. It is not disputed rather is admitted that Matru Lal carried his goats in the truck in question at the time when the accident took place and the liability of insurance company was fully on its account of the insurance policy taken by the owner of the truck in question. ( 13 ) MR. Pankaj Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellants, cited Santra Bai v. Prahlad 1985 ACJ 762 (Rajasthan ). The Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court also is of the same view as the division Bench of our court. The Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court while considering the provisions of Section 95 (1) proviso (ii) also considered Rule 133 of the Rules and had also relied on and followed the decision in Abdul Razak v. Sharifunnisa 1984 ACJ 44 (Allahabad) in their judgment. ( 14 ) THE last case cited by the learned counsel for appellants is T. M. Renukappa v. Fahmida 1980 acj 86 (Karnataka ). The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court also held that the insurer does not escape its liability for the risk of the owner of the goods, travelling in the vehicle along with the goods. In view of the above law, this is patently clear and according to the findings of the Tribunal, Matru Lal deceased was travelling with his goats by the truck No. UPI 973 insured with the respondent No. 7. Thus, the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants is fully proved against it. ( 15 ) THE appeal is allowed with costs against the respondent No. 7 and the judgment of the tribunal is modified to the extent that the respondent No. 7, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , is liable equally with the owner to pay the amount of compensation to the heirs of the deceased matru Lal, opposite party Nos. 1 to 6. .