( 1 ) THE following question is referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench consisting of N. H. Bhatt and S. L. Talati JJ. as the said Division Bench was of the view that it was necessary to resolve the conflict arising out of the two inconsistent Division Bench decisions one in State Road Transport v. Malubai reported in 21 G. L. R. 400 deci- ded by B. K. Mehta and S. B. Majmudar JJ. and another in Vanaji v. Shivabhai Kashibhai reported in AIR 1980 Gujarat 154 = 1979 (2)-XX (2) G. L. R. 342 decided by M. K. Shah and D. H. Shukla JJ. :"where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward whether a passenger on payment will get the benefit of the statutory insurance" ?

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy in its proper perspective it requires to be mentioned that the occasion to make the reference arose in the course of proceedings in which the Insurance Company which had insured a public carrier (Leyland Goods Truck) disclaimed its liability to satisfy the awards made in three different but connected motor accident claim cases on the ground that the vehicle in question was on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to carry passengers for hire or reward and that it was at the time of the accident stated to have been actually used to carry three passengers for hire or reward and that therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to satisfy the awards made in favour of one of such passengers who was injured and the dependents of the other two of such passengers who met with their death in the course of the accident.

( 3 ) IT would be convenient to refer to the relevant statutory provi- sions at the outset. Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter be referred to as the Act) which consists of secs. 93 to 111 makes detailed provisions with regard to the insurance of motor vehicles against third party risks. Sec. 94 in so far as it is relevant for the present purposes provides that 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 the said Chapter. Sec. 95 deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability. In 80 far as it is relevant for the present purposes the said section 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) xxx xxx xxx xxx (C) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-sec. (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; (III) 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:provided that a policy shall not be required (I) to cover liability in respect of the death arising out of and in the course of his employment of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmens Act 1923 in respect of the death of or bodily injury to 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 on the vehicle or (D) if it is a goods vehicle being carried in the vehicle or (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 i