NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. KANNAN — 1997 DIGILAW 103 (KAR)

HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , arises from the award dated 10. 10. 1991, given in M. V. C. No. 77 of 1988, which had been decided along with M. V. C. Nos. 76, 78, 79 and 80 of 1988, arising out of claim in petitions filed by different persons as a result of injuries suffered in one and common accident. The present appeal is confined to the award given with reference to M. V. C. No. 77 of 1988. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in the nutshell are that on 2. 2. 1988, lorry bearing the registration No. TMC 7459, which was driven by one Shankar, from Madras to Bangalore and when the aforesaid lorry was near Hosakote gate, on Bangalore-Kolar road at 6. 35 a. m. as it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, in the process of avoiding a bullock cart, suddenly turned on the left side of the road and dashed against a tree. According to the case of the claimants in m. V. C. No. 77 of 1988, one Sampath who was aged 23 years and who was son of claimant Nos. 1 and 2 and husband of claimant No. 3 and who was working with Ramachandran as a coolie getting daily wages of Rs. 50/-, was going along with the load of powdered husk to be supplied at Tumkur. The claimants case is that Sampath was going along with the load of powdered husk under the directions of his employer who was the owner of the rice mill and so he was travelling in the lorry as he had to get the powdered husk supplied and receive the money. In that capacity, according to the claimants case, Sampath was travelling in the lorry as an agent and employee of the rice mill owner with the load of powdered husk. Petitioners case is that when the lorry suddenly turned to the left side of the road and dashed against the tree, Sampath was injured and he died on the spot. The claimants have further stated in the claim petition that the claimants were depending on deceased Sampath who was regularly maintaining the family consisting of petitioner Nos. Petitioners case is that when the lorry suddenly turned to the left side of the road and dashed against the tree, Sampath was injured and he died on the spot. The claimants have further stated in the claim petition that the claimants were depending on deceased Sampath who was regularly maintaining the family consisting of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, that is, the parents, his own wife claimant petitioner No. 3 and also his baby daughter aged about 6 months at the time of the accident. The claimants asserted that he was the sole bread earner in the family and on account of his death the family has suffered badly. The third claimant, that is, the wife also made a claim for loss of company and consortium of her husband. The claimants asserted that the income of the deceased was Rs. 50/- per day. The claimants, that is, petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 in the M. V. C. No. 77 of 1988 (respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the appeal) had made their claim for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation of the amount. ( 3 ) THE claim of the claimants was contested by respondent No. 2 in the claim petition, namely, the insurance company. Respondent No. 1 remained ex parte in all the cases, while insurance company contested the claim in all the cases. The respondent No. 2 denied the allegations contained in the claim petitions as well as denied the allegations to the effect that deceased sampath was working as an employee with the rice mill concerned belonging to Ramachandran. The respondent No. 2 further alleged that deceased Sampath and other claimants in other claim petitions were travelling in the lorry as unauthorised passengers and as such insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. It further alleged that the compensation claimed by the claimants has been exorbitant, unreasonable and imaginary. The insurance company admitted that the respondent No. 1, the owner of the lorry, had a valid insurance of the vehicle on the date of accident and the liability if any of the compensation is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. The insurance company admitted that the respondent No. 1, the owner of the lorry, had a valid insurance of the vehicle on the date of accident and the liability if any of the compensation is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed that the claim petition be dismissed. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal framed issues with reference to all the motor vehicle cases,. e. , with reference to m. V. C. Nos. 76 of of 1988, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the petitioners prove that Shanmugam/sampath died due to the injuries sustained by them in the accident which occurred on 2. 2. 1988 on Bangalore-Madias road due to rash and negligent driving of lorry TMC 7459 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (3) What order? ( 5 ) EXAMINING the material on record, the Tribunal held that the claimants have proved that deceased person, that is, Sampath died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident which did take place on 2. 2. 1988, on Bangalore-Madras road. It further held that the said accident did take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the driver of the lorry TMC 7459. The Tribunal held that the doctor has opined that the death of Sampath had taken place due to shock and haemorrhage caused on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. The tribunal further held that it is clear from the evidence on record that deceased Sampath was travelling in the lorry in question as the employee of the hirer of the vehicle with the goods that were being transported. It further held that as such, as Sampath was travelling as the employee and agent of the hirer, whose goods were being transported, with the goods in the lorry in question he was travelling as authorised passenger in the goods vehicle and was not a gratuitous passenger and therefore the insurance company is and has been liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, as well as owner of the lorry. The Tribunal further found that the deceased at the time of death was aged about 25 years. The claimant Nos. The Tribunal further found that the deceased at the time of death was aged about 25 years. The claimant Nos. 1 and 2, parents of the deceased would have been 60-65 years respectively at the time of occurrence. The claimant No. 3, that is, petitioner No. 3 in the claim petition who is respondent No. 3 in the appeal and who is widow of deceased Sampath, was at the time of accident aged about 22 years and it held that the multiplier of ' 15' would be proper multiplier to find out the loss of dependency. The Tribunal further found that the salary given in column No. 6 of the claim petition as Rs. 600/- per month was justified as deceased was working as a coolie and ordinary labourer gets wages at the rate of Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- per day. It further found that if after deducting the amount which he might be spending on himself personally, the loss of dependency to the family would come to Rs. 400/- per month, that is, Rs. 4,800/- per year. The Tribunal multiplied this figure of Rs. 4,800 by multiplier of 15 years and found that the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 72,000/- and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 72,000/- towards loss of dependency. The Tribunal further held that the claimant no. 3, that is, the widow of the deceased Sampath has suffered loss of company and consortium of her husband and she being quite young and unwilling to remarry, as it is not the custom in their community, she should be allowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of consortium and allowed it as such. The Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 6,000/- for loss of expectation of life and consequently loss to estate of deceased due to premature death of Sampath, the deceased. It allowed a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards funeral and incidental expenses. Thus in total the Tribunal allowed a sum of Rs. 90,500/- as compensation under various heads, namely, loss of dependency, consortium, loss to the estate, funeral and other incidental expenses. The Tribunal further held that respondent No. 1 is no doubt liable to pay, but along with it respondent insurer is also liable to pay in order to indemnify the respondent No. 1 insured under Exh. P-l, under which its liability is unlimited. The Tribunal further held that respondent No. 1 is no doubt liable to pay, but along with it respondent insurer is also liable to pay in order to indemnify the respondent No. 1 insured under Exh. P-l, under which its liability is unlimited. Therefore it passed the award for Rs. 90,500/- in favour of the claimants-petitioners and it was provided that liability of respondents in the claim petition shall be joint and several, but the respondent No. 2 will have to pay the compensation. ( 6 ) HAVING felt aggrieved from the judgment and award given by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal-II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (Mr. T. Abdul Mujeeb), the New India insurance Co. Ltd. has come up in appeal. ( 7 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. C. K. Kambeyanda at good length. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant by Mr. C. K. Kambeyanda that deceased was a passenger in the goods vehicle on his own risk and in view of the provisions of Section 95 of the act, the policy that has been issued did not cover or create any liability. It has been contended in the claim petition by the claimants that on 2. 2. 1988, deceased as employee of the rice mill was asked to accompany the lorry with load of powdered husk to be supplied at Tumkur and to get money and he was travelling in the lorry as agent of the owner and he was an authorised passenger. The learned Counsel submitted that the person accompanying the goods either as owner or as agent, it has been held by this hon'ble court in many cases, could not be covered and were not covered by risk under the policy issued under Section 95 of Motor Vehicles Act unless and until the vehicle had been hired for that purpose and insurance company has taken additional burden. It was contended there has been no liability on the appellant insurance company. It was further contended that deceased was an unauthorised passenger in the goods vehicle, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and so the statutory policy is not required to cover any passenger in the goods vehicle. It was urged that the award is liable to be set aside. It was further contended that deceased was an unauthorised passenger in the goods vehicle, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and so the statutory policy is not required to cover any passenger in the goods vehicle. It was urged that the award is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel in support of his contention that goods vehicles are only meant for being used as goods vehicle and no passenger is to be allowed to travel on it and so as deceased was travelling on it, in unauthorised manner, no compensation could be directed to be paid by the insurance company, sought to place reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dundamma 1992 ACJ1 , [1992 ]75 compcas141 (Kar ), ILR1991 KAR 2045 , 1991 (3 )Karlj505. He also made reference to another Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Immam Amina-sab Nadaf 1990 ACJ757 , AIR1990 Kant 156 , air1990 KAR 156 , [1990 ]67 Compcas287 (Kar ), ILR1990 KAR 16 , for the proposition that prima facie risk is not covered by the policy, then no award could be made directing the insurer to make payment of compensation to the insured or to the heirs of the deceased. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there are no doubt some cases of the different High Courts in which a contrary view has been taken, such as the decision of allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Razaq v. Sharifunnisa 1984 ACJ 44 (Allahabad) and by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Patharibai Karansingh v. Firm Lalji shankarlal 1985 ACJ 526 (MP ). He submitted that these cases have been considered by the Full bench and also earlier Bench decision of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gangamma 1982 ACJ 357 (Karnataka), in which the Division Bench followed the earlier view in Channappa v. Laxman AIR1979 Kant 93 , AIR1979 KAR 93 , [1982 ]52 Compcas609a (Kar ), ILR1979 KAR 863. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he placed these cases, because it was his duty to place all the case law which may be for or against. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he placed these cases, because it was his duty to place all the case law which may be for or against. ( 10 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the case law placed before me. ( 11 ) BEFORE I proceed to place the relevant case law, it appears just and proper to make reference to certain provisions of the Act. Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is applicable to the present case as the occurrence had taken place on 2. 2. 1988, is analogous to Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It provides for the necessity of the insurance against 3rd party. Sub-section (1) of Section 94 of the Act along with explanation reads as under: 94 (1) No person shall use except as a passenger or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter. Explanationa person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force. ( 12 ) SECTION 95 of the Act of 1939 provides for requirements of policies and limits of liability. ( 12 ) SECTION 95 of the Act of 1939 provides for requirements of policies and limits of liability. Section 95 (1) reads as under: 95 (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which (a) 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 (b) 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. First proviso to Section 95 provides that a policy shall not be required (i) XXX XXX XXX (ii) 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, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons 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, or (iii) to cover any contractual liability. (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 Workmen's 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; xxx xxx xxx (5) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in any law, a person issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons. ( 13 ) A reading of Sections 94 (1) and (2) and 95 per se reveals that it is a mandatory requirement of the law, for the owner of the motor vehicle using it in public place to take an insurance policy, which insures persons or classes of persons specified in Section 95 (1) (b) (i) and (ii) to the extent it is specified in Sub-section (2) against third party liability (a) which may be incurred by the insured in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of the third party caused by or arising out of the using of vehicle in public place; and (b) against death of or bodily injury to any person or passenger by a public service vehicle caused or arising out of the use of the vehicle in the public place. A reading of proviso (i), along with Sub-section (2) of section 95 reveals that in case of goods vehicle, the extent of liability is fixed including the liability arising out of death of or bodily injury to employees other than the driver not exceeding six in number being carried in the vehicle. Rule 161 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, makes provision with reference to carriage of persons in goods vehicle. It reads as under: 161. Carriage of persons in goods vehicles. Rule 161 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, makes provision with reference to carriage of persons in goods vehicle. It reads as under: 161. Carriage of persons in goods vehicles. (1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle: provided that the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or the hirer of the vehicle may be carried in a goods vehicle, the total number of persons so carried in a light transport goods vehicle not being more than three and in any other goods vehicle, not being more than seven including the driver. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-rules (4) and (5), a Regional Transport Authority may by an order in writing permit a larger number of persons being carried in the vehicle on condition that no goods at all are carried in addition to such persons and such persons are carried free of charge in connection with the work for which the vehicle is used and that such other conditions as may be mentioned by the regional Transport Authority are observed and where the vehicle is required to be covered by a permit, the conditions of the permission aforesaid are also made conditions of the permit. Other sub-rules are not material for our purpose. ( 14 ) RULE 161 appears to have been made in exercise of powers under Section 68 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, which empower the Government to make Rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter 4. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 68, power is conferred on the Government to make Rules in respect of matters enumerated thereunder and vide Clause (y) of Section 68 this Rule 161 has been framed. A perusal of this Rule 161 per se reveals that no person has to be carried in a goods vehicle, but this is subject to other provisions of Rule 161. As per proviso, the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or hirer of the vehicle may be carried in a goods vehicle, but the extent of limit of number of persons is prescribed under the proviso. As per proviso, the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or hirer of the vehicle may be carried in a goods vehicle, but the extent of limit of number of persons is prescribed under the proviso. That in case of light transport goods vehicle not more than three persons can go in that vehicle and in the case of other goods vehicle, the number may be seven, including the driver. ( 15 ) A reading of the Rules reveals that in the goods vehicle, owner or hirer or employee of the owner or hirer of the vehicle may be carried along with the goods, but the number of persons must not exceed the limits prescribed. The definition of goods vehicle under Section 2 (8) has been given as under: 'goods vehicle' means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers. ( 16 ) THE primary purpose of the motor vehicle for its user is the carnage of goods when it is used for carriage of goods either solely or in addition to passengers, it has been described to be a goods vehicle. But a goods vehicle is not intended ordinarily to be used as a passenger vehicle and particularly when Rule 161 so provides that no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle subject to the exception provided in the proviso. That only persons who can be taken or carried in the goods vehicle are owner or hirer of the vehicle or the bona fide employee of the owner or hirer who may be carried in the vehicle, but the maximum limit in case of goods vehicle other than light transport goods vehicle is seven, including the driver, that it cannot exceed six excluding the driver. The rule reveals that apart from these mentioned no person can be taken as a passenger in the goods vehicle. ( 17 ) IN the case of National Insurance Co. The rule reveals that apart from these mentioned no person can be taken as a passenger in the goods vehicle. ( 17 ) IN the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Dundamma 1992 acj1 , [1992 ]75 Compcas141 (Kar ), ILR1991 KAR 2045 , 1991 (3 )Karlj505 , after having made reference to various provisions of Acts and Rules, particularly Rule 161, the Full Bench observed as under: as can be seen from the above rule, it emphatically provides that no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle, except as provided in the rule. Under the proviso the only persons who are permitted to be carried in a goods vehicle are the owner or hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner or hirer. The total number of such persons who could be carried in a light transport vehicle is not more than three and in the case of heavy transport vehicle, not more than seven including the driver. The above rule also unmistakably indicates that the rule does not permit the carrying of any passenger for hire or reward in a goods vehicle. The only type of passengers permitted in a goods vehicle in the above rule are the owner of the vehicle itself or the hirer of the goods vehicle concerned or the employee of the owner or the employee of the hirer of the vehicle, that too subject to the condition that the number should not exceed three in the case of light motor vehicle and six other than the driver, in respect of heavy goods vehicle. ( 18 ) THE Full Bench further observed in para 15 that the classification of goods vehicle and passengers vehicle separately for fixing the liability under Section 95 (2) of the Act and the omission of reference to any passenger liability in respect of the goods vehicle, in our opinion is in conformity with the entire scheme of the Act, which classifies the vehicles carrying passengers for hire or reward into one category and goods vehicles, which are not meant to carry passengers for hire or reward into another category. ( 19 ) IN para 27, the Full Bench again observed:. . . ( 19 ) IN para 27, the Full Bench again observed:. . . Whatever that may be, passengers travelling in a goods vehicle, other than the employees, are not required to be covered by a policy issued in terms of Section 95 of the Act, by the force of clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95 (1) (b) of the Act. ( 20 ) A reading of the above observations of the Full Bench per se reveals that the liability covered under the policy relating to goods vehicle covers in itself the statutory liability with reference to the owner or the hirer of the vehicle and with reference to the employees of owner of the vehicle or the employees of the hirer who hires the vehicle for transportation of goods when they are required to go along with the goods transported in the goods vehicle. No doubt the extent of limit is limited with their number. They are in no case to exceed six excluding the driver, that is including the driver the number of such persons who may be employees of owner of the vehicle or of the hirer that is the owner of the goods should not be more then seven. This case which has been referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant really appears to me, support the decision of the Tribunal. A similar view ppears to have been taken in the case of oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanuman-tappa 1992 ACJ1083 , [1993 ]76 Compcas411 (Kar ), ILR1992 KAR 1335 , 1992 (2 )Karlj183 , where after having made reference to the observations in para 27 of the Full Bench decision in National Insurance Co. A similar view ppears to have been taken in the case of oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanuman-tappa 1992 ACJ1083 , [1993 ]76 Compcas411 (Kar ), ILR1992 KAR 1335 , 1992 (2 )Karlj183 , where after having made reference to the observations in para 27 of the Full Bench decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dundamma 1992 ACJ1 , [1992 ]75 Compcas141 (Kar ), ilr1991 KAR 2045 , 1991 (3 )Karlj505 , their Lordships have observed at page 1087 as under: as held earlier, as tractor-trailer is a 'goods vehicle' in view of the Full Bench decision, it is clear that under an 'act policy' the insurance company concerned is liable to pay compensation in respect of death of or bodily injury to persons, who are coolies or employees, who are travelling in a tractor-trailer to the extent provided for in Sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act and the liability is restricted to the compensation payable under the provisions of the Workmen's compensation Act, to the employee or his dependants, as the case may be. Further, according to sub-section (2) of Section 95 of the Act, the liability of the insurance company is limited to 6 employees other than driver. Therefore, we hold that in respect of tractor-trailer also the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in respect of death of or bodily injury to employees carried in the tractor-trailer, subject to the maximum of six and the liability is limited to the compensation payable under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanu-mantappa 1992 ACJ1083 , [1993 ]76 Compcas411 (Kar ), ILR1992 KAR 1335 , 1992 (2 )Karlj183 , the persons who had died or who suffered injuries were the labourers engaged in loading and unloading of the manure and they were travelling in the trailer. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanu-mantappa 1992 ACJ1083 , [1993 ]76 Compcas411 (Kar ), ILR1992 KAR 1335 , 1992 (2 )Karlj183 , the persons who had died or who suffered injuries were the labourers engaged in loading and unloading of the manure and they were travelling in the trailer. ( 21 ) A perusal of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 95 reveals that a policy shall not be required to cover the liabilities referred to in Clauses (i) (ii) and (iii), that is, the liability in respect of death arising out of and in the course of employment of the employee or of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising in course of employment other than liability arising under Workmen's Compensation Act, in respect of death of or bodily injury to any such employee (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets in the vehicle or; (c) if it is a goods vehicle, being carried in the vehicle. A perusal of these clauses firstly reveals in other words that policy issued under the Act shall cover the liability in respect of death of or bodily injury sustained by an employee arising under workmen's Compensation Act in respect of an employee as indicated in Clauses (a) (b) and (c) of proviso to Clause (i ). Proviso to Clause (ii) again provides a general principle that policy shall not be required to cover the liability in respect of death of, or bodily injury to persons 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. Again to this general principle under Clause (ii) to the proviso, an exception is provided. Exceptions provided are where the vehicle is a vehicle in which the passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, the person is being carried. In these cases the general principle contained in proviso (ii) will not apply. Exceptions provided are where the vehicle is a vehicle in which the passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, the person is being carried. In these cases the general principle contained in proviso (ii) will not apply. It means that if the liability in respect of death of or bodily injury to the person 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 claim arises, with reference to passengers carried in a vehicle which is a vehicle in which passengers are ordinarily carried for hire or reward, then the policy will be deemed to cover such liability or where in a vehicle in pursuance of a contract of employment, person or persons are taken in that vehicle, then the policy will be required to cover that liability arising from death or bodily injury to the person carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting etc. , from the vehicle. ( 22 ) A reading of these clauses per se reveals that where a person is carried in a vehicle even in a goods vehicle under a contract of employment, whether with the owner of the vehicle or with the hirer of the vehicle for transporting goods, the policy will be deemed to cover the liability of such persons. ( 23 ) AS mentioned earlier, in view of the Rules framed under Section 68 (2) (y) of the Act of 1939, namely Rule 161 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, in a goods vehicle the owner or hirer of the vehicle as well as the employees of the owner or hirer may also be carried in the goods vehicle. Therefore, as in the present case that deceased was the employee of the hirer who had hired the vehicle for transporting the powdered husk for being supplied at Tumkur and to get money and that the employee had been directed by the hirer to go with the goods on the vehicle. So when the deceased was going in that vehicle under employment, it cannot be said that he was an unauthorised passenger in the lorry. It is nobody's case that the number of persons in that lorry were beyond the fixed limit of seven persons including the driver. So when the deceased was going in that vehicle under employment, it cannot be said that he was an unauthorised passenger in the lorry. It is nobody's case that the number of persons in that lorry were beyond the fixed limit of seven persons including the driver. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal did not suffer from any error of law. ( 24 ) THE expression 'contract of employment' used in Section 95 appears to cover not only contract of employment with the insured owner of the vehicle, but it covers the person going under the contract of employment with the hirer or owner of the goods. The employee of the hirer of the vehicle for transporting goods stands on different footing from others. The employee of the hirer may also stand on the same footing as employee of the insured, the coverage of risk by the policy issued by the insurance company of the motor vehicle, also covers within itself all those persons carried by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment either with the owner of the vehicle or with the owner of goods or the hirer travelling in the vehicle. The expression in proviso (ii) of Section 95 reveals that exception created in Clause (ii) to the general rule refers to two types of vehiclesfirst type is those which may be passenger vehicles such as stage carriage buses or the like in which passengers are carried for hire or reward, the other may be the vehicles in which even if they are not passenger buses, in which ordinarily passengers are carried for hire or reward, but they may be goods vehicles, but passengers have to be carried on account of or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment between either the owner of the vehicle and his employee or between the hirer who has hired the vehicle for transport of goods and his employee,. e. , owner of goods or as the employee of the hirer, for being carried in the goods vehicle for due and proper transportation of goods and related matter therewith. e. , owner of goods or as the employee of the hirer, for being carried in the goods vehicle for due and proper transportation of goods and related matter therewith. ( 25 ) WHEN I so observe, I find support from Sub-clause (c) to proviso (i), which has provided an exception in the case of employment, if such employee has been carried in any vehicle even if it is a goods vehicle. The contention of appellant to the effect that the deceased was an employee of the hirer, carried in the vehicle along with the goods under the directions of the owner of the goods and the hirer of the lorry, the insurance company is not liable, is without substance. As no cross-objection has been filed in the appeal, there is no question of going into the quantum of award. ( 26 ) THUS considered, in my opinion, the appeal has got no force and no merits, it deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. The award given by the Tribunal is hereby maintained and affirmed.