( 1 ) THIS appeal arises under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). The claimant is the appellant before us. The owner of the vehicle and the insurance company are respondents 1 and 2 respectively. The principal grievance raised by the claimant is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') has committed an error of law in exonerating the insurance company from indemnifying the compensation awarded against the owner.

( 2 ) ON a close reading of the order the reference drawn by the learned single Judge, the following question of the law seems to require our consideration :- (I) Whether, under Section 95 (1) of the Act, the owner of a goods vehicle is required to compulsorily insure against the risk of death or bodily injury of his employees arising out of and in the course of their employment because of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) Whether the insurer will be liable to indemnify the owner against the compensation awarded only in proceedings commenced under the Compensation Act or will be so liable even if the compensation is awarded by the Tribunal under the Act and in either case, to what extent.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts are quite brief and are almost admitted. Respondent-1 is the owner of a goods vehicle bearing registration No. MEC 4469. The claimant was under his employment working as a driver. On 28-11-1988, while he was travelling in the vehicle as an additional driver, it met with an accident causing injuries to the claimant and to one more person. On the fateful day, the vehicle was being driven by another driver named Nawab Jan.

( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the Claimant filed an application for compensation before the Tribunal under Section 110a of the Act. The Tribunal after holding an enquiry held that the accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving. Accordingly, it awarded global compensation of Rs. 52,400/- with costs and interest. Respondent No. 1, being the owner, was held as vicariously, liable to pay the said amount.

( 5 ) SO far as the liability of the insurer to indemnify the owner and pay the compensation is concerned, though it has been found that there was an insurance policy filed by the claimant as Ex. P. 4, which was duly corroborated by Motor Renewal Endorsement placed at Ex. R-1, but since as per the details of premium set out therein, the risk of additional driver was not covered, therefore, the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from indemnifying the owner. It is in the said factual settings, that the legal issues pertaining to liability of the insurance company, based on the construction of Section 95 of the Act, has been raised by the claimant with whom the owner has joined hands.

( 6 ) BEFORE adverting to the issues raised, it may be pertinent to ascertain the rights of an employee of a goods vehicle suffering injuries in an accident of the vehicle arising out of and in the course of his employment. There may be varying situations which can give rise to claims for compensation under the Act or the Compensation Act or under both the Acts but subject to Section 110aa of the Act. These situations will arise (i) if the accident is not attributable to any negligence on the part of the driver/owner, or, (ii) if it is found that the victim had not suffered injuries arising out of or in the course of his employment, or, (iii) if the employee suffers injury, fatal or otherwise, in the course of his employment and is attributable to the negligence of the driver/owner. I will do better to substantiate this aspect by referring to some of the decisions of the Supreme Court.

( 7 ) IN the case of Minu B. Mehta v. Balakrishna Ramachandra Nayan, AIR 1977 SC 1248, the Apex Court, after considering the legislative history and considering the provisions of the Act, has held that.-"the liability of the owner of the car to compensate the victim in a car accident due to the negligent