The main legal point established in the judgment is the vicarious liability of the owner of the goods vehicle for the compensation due to the negligent conduct of the driver, and the liability of the insurer for the compensation for the death of the owner of the goods as a passenger for hire in the insured vehicle.

VENKATACHALA, J. :- M.F.0A. Nos. 227 and 363 of 1975 under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (to be referred to as the Act), have arisen from the common order and separate awards dated 28-2-1975 of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (to be referred to as the Tribunal), Bijapur, made in Misc. Cases Nos. 38 and 28 of 1973 - claim cases filed under Section 110-A of the Act.

2. The material facts and circumstances leading up to these appeals lie in a narrow compass and they may be summarised thus : A goods vehicle bearing registration No. MYR 3739 was being used by its owner, a public carrier, for carriage of goods from Bijapur to Talikot. On 3-3-1973, when the said vehicle was carrying goods from Bijapur to Talikot, it met with an accident at 6 P.M. near a place called Hitnalli as the driver of the vehicle failed in his attempt to successfully negotiate the vehicle in a sharp curve on the road. As a result of the accident, six persons in the vehicle including one Somappa Mallappa Nidagundi of Talikot, the owner of certain goods who had hired the vehicle for carrying the goods and Balappa Bajentri, the cleaner of the vehicle, sustained fatal injuries and died of those injuries. Laxman Bhimappa Bajentri (to be referred to as Laxman) filed Claim Case No. 38 of 1973 claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for the death of Balappa Bajentri (Cleaner) and Mallappa Malkajappa Nidagundi (to be referred to as Mallapga) filed Claim Case No. 28 of 1973 claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,24,000/- for the death of Somappa Mallappa Nidagundi (owner of the goods). The claims for compensation were made against (1) Yeli Budeppa Bankapur, the owner of the vehicle, (2) Channappa Channaveerappa Katti, agent of the owner who was in charge of the management of the vehicle, (3) Bhimappa Balappa Bajentri, driver of the vehicle, and (4) Madras Motor and General Insurance Co., Ltd., later merged. with United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the vehicle. In the claim applications made before the Tribunal at Bijapur by Laxman and Mallappa, it was alleged that the driver of the vehicle was guilty of rash and negligent conduct in driving the vehicle and the accident was the result of such rash and negligent conduct of the driver giving rise to an actionable wrong. The owner of the vehicle and the agent of the owner of the vehicle, in the common objection-statement filed in the cases, besides denying the allegations of rash and negligent conduct of the driver in driving the vehicle, specifically pleaded that since the agent was in charge of the management of the vehicle on behalf of the owner, the agent cannot become liable for payment of the compensation. The driver of the vehicle, in the objection-statement filed by him, denied the allegations of rash and negligent conduct in driving the vehicle made against him. In the objection-statement filed by the insurer in Claim Case No. 38 of 1973, though it admitted that the risk for the cleaner was covered by the insurance policy issued in respect of the vehicle, it pleaded its non-liability to the claim for compensation made against it an the ground that the ownership of the vehicle on the date of the accident was not with the policy-holder. Again, in the objection-statement filed by the insurer in Claim case No. 28 of 1973, it pleaded its non-liability to the claim made against it for compensation on two grounds, namely, (i) that the ownership of the vehicle was not with the policy-holder on the date of the accident, and (ii) that the claim for compensation did not relate to the death of a person whose risk was required to be insured against compulsorily under the Act. Thus, from the objection-statements of the insurer, it can be seen that the non-liability pleaded by the insurer on the ground of ownership of the vehicle not being with the policyholder on the date of the accident was common to both cases; and the non-liability for the claim for com