( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company in a motor accidents claim case. The facts of the Case briefly stated are as under:

( 2 ) ON 20th November 1973 a station wagon belonging to Modern Construction Company was proceeding from Dharoi colony to Dharoi project site and amongst others two employees of the State Government Ramanlal Kantilal and Sevantilal Somchand were travelling by that station wagon. While taking a turn on way the station wagon fell in the nearby ditch because the driver did not slow down the speed. As a result of this accident Sevantilal died on the spot Ramanlal became unconscious and was removed to the hospital where he never regained consciousness and ultimately died on 8th of May 1975. M. A. C. T. Petition No. 19 of 1974 was filed by the heirs of Ramanlal and M. A. C. T. Petition No. 74 of 1974 was originally filed by Sevantilal himself but after his death it was continued by his heirs. Ramanlals heirs claimed the compensation of Rs. 60 0 Sevantilals heirs claimed the compensation of Rs. 50 0 Both the petitions were filed in forma pauperis. The Tribunal heard boththe petitions and made in favour of Ramanlals heirs award for Rs. 50 200 while it made in favour of Sevantilals heirs award for Rs. 28 500 These awards have not been challenged by the owner of the vehicle Modern Construction Company. There is no challenge to these awards on behalf of any of the claimants on the ground that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is less. The challenge to the awards has been made only by Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited with which the vehicle was insured by Modern Construction Company.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the Insurance Company Mr. Zaveri has raised two contentions before us: ( i ) The deceased were gratuitous passengers. Therefore the Insurance Company under the terms of the policy was not liable to pay anything to the claimants in order to indemnify the insured. (III) In the alternative liability of the Insurance Company is limited in terms of the policy to a sum of Rs. 15 0 only in case of the claim made by Sevantilals heirs. (IV) He has contended that since Ramanlal died about 1 1/2 years after the accident took place his heirs are not entitled to claim anything under the terms of the policy from the Insurance Company. In this context he has invited our attention to the policy of insurance Ex. 99.

( 4 ) THE material portion of the policy reads as under: In consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is hereby understood and agreed that the Company undertakes to pay compensation on the scale provided below for bodily injury as hereinafter defined sustained by any passenger other than the insured and/or his paid driver attendant or cleaner and/or a person in the employ of the insured coming within the scope of the Workmens Compensation Act 1923 and subsequent amendments of the said Act and engaged in and upon the service of the insured at the time such injury is sustained whilst mounting into dismounting from or travelling in but not driving the Motor Car and caused by violent accidental external and visible means which independently of any other cause shall within three calendar months of the occurrence of such injury result in: Scale of Compensation. (1) Death. . . . Rs. 15 0 000 it is not necessary to reproduce other scales given in the policy. Proviso (a) to this term reads as under: Provided always that: (a) Compensation shall be payable under one only of items (1) to (7) above in respect of any such person arising out of any one occurrence and the total liability of the Company shall not in the aggregate exceed the sum of. . . during any one period of insurance. The blank which is shown in proviso (a) was not filled in.

( 5 ) MR. Zaveri has argued that the expression any passenger does not include a gratuitous passenger. We are not impressed by this argument. The expression any passenger is an expression of very wide amplitude and means all pa