The central legal point established in the judgment is that a person employed in connection with the work in which the vehicle was involved is entitled to claim compensation from the insurer under S.95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the insurer can be made liable for claims up to Rs. 50,000 at the relevant time.

1. The appellants are the widow and children of late Shri Abdul Khader, who died as a result of an accident on 25-11-1978 involving a goods vehicle, KLO 2607. The vehicle was owned by the second respondent. At the time of the accident the vehicle was being driven by the first respondent. The third respondent is the insurer. At the time of his death, late Shri Abdul Khader was aged 28 years, and the appellants were depending entirely on him for sustenance. The loss suffered by his death was assessed by them as Rs. 3,00,000/-, and a further amount of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed for pain and suffering of the deceased.

2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 6 percent from 25-5-1979, on the finding that the first respondent was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, and that occasioned the accident and the consequent death of Shri Abdul Khader. It was, however, found that since the deceased was a passenger in the goods vehicle, the third respondent-insurer was not liable. The first appellant was allowed to realise Rs. 10,000/- out of the amount of compensation, and the costs of the petition. The remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- was directed to be deposited in a Nationalised Bank in equal shares in the names of the second and third appellants till they attain majority. The first appellant was, however, allowed to receive interest on the deposit till the 2nd and 3rd appellants attained majority. The appellants assail the award on two grounds. Firstly, that the insurer also should have been made liable for payment of compensation, and secondly that a higher amount should have been awarded as compensation.

3. Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that a passenger in a goods vehicle is not liable to be compensated by the insurer since such liability is outside the purview of the terms of the contract of insurance. It is his submission that the Tribunal should have found that the only provision which applied to the claim of the appellants was S.95(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which at the relevant time, required the insurer to cover the claims relating to accidents involving goods vehicle to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. He submits that the deceased was, admittedly, employed in the loading of timber in the goods vehicle. On the date of the accident, the deceased was engaged in that work and the vehicle was returning after loading rubber trees. It is, therefore, submitted that he was an employee travelling in the goods vehicle and was therefore covered by the provisions of S.95(2)(a) of the

Act.

4. The Tribunal exonerated the insurer for the only reason that the written statement of the third respondent indicated that the insurer was not liable because the deceased was a traveller in the goods vehicle, and no contract of employment was established. This approach of the Tribunal does not seem to us to be correct. S.96(2)(a) of the Act deals with claims arising cut of accidents involving goods vehicle. The Tribunal appears to have assumed that no person can travel in goods vehicle other than its crew. This is evidently unsustainable.

5. Counsel for the third respondent-insurer submitted that the deceased Abdul Khader could, at best, be considered only as a gratuitous passenger in a passenger vehicle and cannot, therefore, claim compensation under any of the provisions of S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act or the policy of insurance. Since we felt that it was necessary to see the policy of insurance to determine this question, we had requested the third respondent-insurer to produce the same. The policy of insurance has been produced, which shows that there was unlimited liability for the company in respect of S.11- (i)/ S.11-1(a), and there was liability upto Rs. 1,50,000/- in respect of any one claim or series of claims arising out of any one event such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. E