An employee of the owner of the goods carried in a vehicle is covered by the insurance policy against third party risks, as per S.95 of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939.

1. A question of some importance arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the State Insurance Department, the 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 156 of 1971, a suit for damages on the file of the Sub Court, Kottayam. The question is whether a person who accompanies the goods of his employer carried in a goods vehicle will be a person carried by the goods vehicle by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment' and whether the liability in respect of his death or bodily injury caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place will be covered by the insurance of the vehicle against third party risks.

2. On 1812-1970 the Peroor Co-operative Society engaged the lorry, KLQ 2516, owned and operated by the 1st defendant A.V. George, for transporting provisions from the Food Corporation Sub Depot, Athirampuzha to Peroor. Mani the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 6, an employee of the society, was put in charge of the transport of the goods from the Sub Depot to the Society's ration shop. On its way to Peroor with the provisions, the lorry capsized on the Ettumannur-Peroor public road. Mani was thrown out. Thought he was rushed to the hospital, be died immediately as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the 1st defendant, the owner of the lorry, impleading the State Insurance Department as the 2nd defendant alleging that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Ist defendant The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 15,000/-as compensation. The Ist defendant filed a written statement denying liability and contending that the suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. The 2nd defendant, the appellant before us, also filed a written statement denying liability and contending that the insurance coverage excludes the risks of passengers of a goods vehicle.

3. Before the trial court, pws.1 to 4 were examined on the plaintiffs' side while Exts. B-1 and B-2 were produced and Dws 1 and 2 were examined on the defendants' side. Exts X-1 to X-3 were marked as court exhibits. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that Mani died as a result of the accident on 18121970. The trial court also found that the lorry in question had a valid third party insurance at the time of the accident, the deceased Mani was travelling in the lorry for and on behalf of the owner of the goods and hence he is entitled to the coverage. So, the trial court made the 2nd defendant also liable for the claim. The trial court fixed the compensation at Rs. 6000/-and made defendants I and 2 equally liable for the same. The 2nd defendant challenges the judgment and decree of the trial court in this appeal.

4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant contended that the insurance being one in respect of a goods vehicle will only cover the driver and cleaner and not anybody else who is carried in the vehicle. It was also contended that the trial court went wrong in holding that the deceased was authorised to transport the provisions of the Society.

5. We will first consider the second contention of the learned Government Pleader. The evidence in the case is that the deceased Mani was travelling in the vehicle for and on behalf of the Society, the owner of the goods. Ext X-1 produced by the Society clearly shows that the Society by its resolution' had authorised Mani to transport the goods from the Food Corporation Depot to their ration shop at Peroor. Mani was travelling in the goods vehicle from Athiratnpuzha to Peroor with the goods when the accident took place. So, there is no merit in the contention that the deceased Mani was travelling in the goods vehicle without any authorisation from his employer, the Society.

6. We will now consider the other contention that the liability under the insurance of the vehicle against third party risks will not cover persons car