This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Chingleput, awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.4, 500 to the first respondent who sustained an injury, in an accident which occurred on December 24, 1961, while he was returning from Nagore to Madras in the delivery van of the second respondent-Snuff Factory (P.) Ltd.-M.S.X.6134, driven by one Jayavelu, and which van has been insured with the appellant, M/s. The General Assurance Society Ltd., Madras, under a comprehensive policy including third party risk

The General Assurance Society Ltd. have preferred the appeal on the grounds that they are not liable to pay compensation to the first respondent, that their obligation rests only with recompensing the insured company for the loss or damage caused to the insured car, that the accident did not occur while the first respondent was in the course of his employment and that the injured person was not a third party as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. They further contend that the injured person being a passenger is not a third party and there is no statutory liability on the part of the insurance company to give compensation to the injured person and that the policy itself does not cover risk to the passenger of the car

In the appeal before me, learned counsel for the appellant took me through the relevant provisions of the terms of the policy. Section II of the terms of the policy deals with liability to third parties. Clause 1 is as follows

"Subject to the limits of liability the society will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant's costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use...of the motor vehicleProvided always that:-

(b) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Society shall be not be liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment

(c) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in relation to liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Society shall not be liable in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises." *

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, according to the provisions of the policy, to the injured person, even assuming that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. Further, the injured person is not either a driver or conductor or any person in pursuance of contract of employment travelling in the vehicle at the time of the accident

It is usual for the insurance companies to insert the above said provisions, that is the customary exclusions, under the third party liability, as stated by Batten and Dinsdale in their book Motor Insurance (third edition) at page 182. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that under the provisions of the policy, the liability to the third party is completely excluded not only under the terms of the contract but also under section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The injured person has no claim against the insurance company. He has to look for his compensation to the employer that is the insured and he has to take appropriate proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is further contended that when there is a definite contract between the insured and the insurance company to exclude certain persons who are employed under him, then such injured persons cannot claim compensation from the insurance company in respect of injuries caused to them. There may be some force in