The expression "contract of employment" in clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 95 of the Act 4 of 1939 refers to a contract of employment with the insured or a contract of employment of a person who is on the insured vehicle for sufficient or business reasons, and has taken a contract of employment in pursuance of which he is on the vehicle as the adequate criterion of such reasons.

Mehar Singh, J.

1. This judgment will dispose off three first appeals Nos. 117, 118 and 119 of 1962 from the order dated June 28, 1962 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The appeals are by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer. The order of the learned Tribunal disposed of three claim applications arising out of one accident in which three persons died and the claim applications were made by their dependants. That is why the learned Tribunal disposed of all the three claim applications by one order and for the same reason the three appeals are being taken together for decision.

2. The finding of fact by the learned Tribunal are that on February 17, 1960 truck PNT : 2749 was hired by Chhajju and Inder Singh at Rs. 90/- from Banarsi Dass of Samana for carriage of hides from Samana to Phillaur. Chhajju and Inder Singh each paid Rs. 30/- but it is not clear who paid the remaining amount of Rs. 30/- Chhajju, Inder Singh, Niranjan Singh and Mangata placed their hides in the truck at various places about Samana. Dalip Singh worked jointly with his father, Inder Singh in his shop at Samana. The truck with the hides left Samana at about 9 P.M. It was driven by Bachna driver of Banarsi Das. Although Mangata was a servant and a relation of Inder Singh but he dealt in the business of hides and skins and so did Chhajju and Niranjan Singh. Dalip Singh and Niranjan Singh were the sons of Inder Singh. All these five persons were on the truck as owners of hides. Inder Singh and another person were with Bachna driver in the drivers cabin, while the remaining four were on the tool box above that cabin. There was the cleaner of the truck on it as well. The total number of persons said to have been on the truck were more than six. At about mid night close to Ludhiana City and near Dhaliwal, the truck collided with another truck coming from the opposite direction, swerved and striking against a shesham tree came to a halt. The impact of the accident threw off the truck Niranjan Singh, Dalip Singh and Mangata of whom Dalip Singh and Mangata died on the spot and Niranjan Singh, a short while after in the hospital at Ludhiana. The three deceased were young persons varying in age between 22 and 43 years. The learned Tribunal has found that the accident took place on account of the negligence of Bachna driver. On the application of the dependants of the three deceased persons, the learned Tribunal awarded them compensation in varying amounts described and detailed in paragraphs 9 to 11 of its order, and it is not necessary to go into this matter because the owner of the truck and the driver have not come in appeal against the order, the appeals as stated, being only by the insurer to escape its liability under a 3rd party Insurance policy. The finding of the Tribunal is clear that the three deceased persons travelled as hirers-owners of the goods carried in the truck in question. The number of such hirers given by it is five which included the three deceased persons the other two persons being Inder Singh, who was sitting in the drivers cabin and Chhajju, who was on the tool box ; both escaped serious injuries.

3. The truck was insured under a Policy of Insurance with the insurer, covering liability in terms of section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act 4 of 1939), and it specifically says that the use of the vehicle was use only under Public carriers permit within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , in that it did not cover use for conveyance of passengers for hire or reward. Another term, to which the learned Tribunal has made a reference reads"Nothing in this policy or any endorsement hereon shall affect the right of any person indemnified by this policy or any other person to recover an amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , section 96. But the insured shall repay to the company all sums paid by the company which the company would not have been liable to pay but f