( 1 ) THIS appeal filed by an Insurance Company under Sec. 110- d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, has been referred to us by the Division Bench consisting of S. B. Majmudar and I. C. Bhatt, JJ. , as they then were, which took the view that Sec. 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Act required correct interpretation in view of the apparently conflicting judgments of two Division Benches of this Court, in the Oriental Fire. and general Insurance Company Limited v. Ganchi Ramanlal Kantilal (Since deceased) and Ors. , (1979) XX GLR 134, and in the State of Gujarat v. Hansa Visanji Rana, 1988 (2) TAC 135. The order for reference was made at the time of admitting the appeal, and the relevant portion of the said order which relates to the controversy is reproduced hereinbelow :"admit. This appeal is directed to be referred to a larger bench in view of the fact that the decision on which the appellant-Insurance Company relies in the case of State of Gujarat v. Hansa Visanji Rana, 1988 (2) TAC 135 comes to a conclusion which is directly contrary to the conclusion reached on similar facts by earlier Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Fire and general Insurance Co v. Ramanlal. (1979) XX GLR 134, on identical facts situation, the Insurance Companys liability has been fixed at Rs. 50,000. 00 while as per the decision in State of Gujarat v. Hansa Rana (supra) another Division bench of this Court has come to the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance company on such facts will be R?. 15. 000/ -. Unfortunately, the decision in (1979) xx GLR 134 was not brought to the notice of the later Division Bench which decided the case of State of Gujarat v. Hansa Rana (supra ). Therefore, this conflict is required to be resolved by a larger Bench. "

( 2 ) BEFORE considering the relevant provisions of the Act and the apparent conflict between the two Division Bench Judgments referred to hereinabove, it would be necessary to have a look at the facts involved in this appeal in order to appreciate whether the facts were identical to the fact situation giving rise to the earlier Division Bench Judgments. The deceased Arvindji and some of the staff members of O. N. G. C. were proceeding for field work in a Jeep car belonging to O. N. G. C. It met with an accident with one Matador Van coming from opposite direction and in that accident Arvindji was injured on the head and he ultimately expired. His heirs, therefore, filed the claim petition against the owners and insurers of both the vehicles. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana, found, after appreciation of the evidence on record that both the vehicles were driven by the respective drivers rashly and negligently on a public road, and, therefore, the opponents were liable to pay compensation to the claimants in equal proportion. As the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was Rs. 53,200/ - with running interest, the New India Assurance Company Limited which had insured the jeep in which the deceased was carried at the lime of the accident, has filed this appeal against the award of Rs. 26,600. 00 passed against it.

( 3 ) MR. R. H. Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant-Insurance Company had not insured and was not expected under law to insure the risk to an employee. being carried in a private vehicle of O. N. G. C. He submits that even if the victim of the accident is assumed to be carried in the vehicle by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of such a passenger would be limited to Rs. 15,000. 00 as per clause (ii) of Sec. 95 (2) (b) of the Act and not under sub-clause (i) of Sec. 95 (2) (b) which, according to Mr. Mehta, would apply in case of third party risk. He relies on the judgment in Hansa visanji Rana delivered on 29-4-1985 and submits that the earlier Division Bench judgment in Ganchi Ramanlal kantilal is erroneous. I