The exclusion from insurance coverage under Sec.95(1)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act applies not only to employees of the insured person, but also to persons who are on the insured vehicle by reason of or in pursuance of their contract of employment, regardless of who they were employed by.

1. This order will cover F. A. Os. Nos.117 to 119 of 1962. In all these three appeals only one question has been agitated, namely, that the insurance company is not liable to meet the claims of persons travelling in a goods vehicle unless those persons are travelling in that vehicle in the course of employment. In the present case the deceased were not persons who were travelling in the course of employment. They were the owners of the goods that were being carried by the goods carrier which met with an accident. The liability of the owner of the carrier to compensate them is not in question. It is the liability of the insurance company which is in question. There is a Division Bench decision of this court in Smt. Parkash Vati V/s. Delhi Dayal Bagh Dairy Ltd. (Regular First Appeal No. I-D of 1953, decided on 15th of November, 1957), which seems to support the insurance company, whereas the opposite party contends that this decision has no application to the facts of the present case. Moreover, it is argued that the defence taken by the insurance company is not open to them by reason of Sec.96 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This decision was cited before the Tribunal and has not been followed by it. I am also told that there are a large number of cases pending in this court in which the same point arises and requires determination. In my view it will be proper that this matter is now authoritatively settled by a Full Bench.

1. I may also mention that these appeals were placed for hearing before Gurdev Singh J. and the learned judge adjourned them to await the decision of the Full Bench in Northern India Transporters Insurance Company, Ltd. V/s. Smt. Amra Watti (F. A. O.145 of 1960, decided on 10th of February, 1965, [1965] 35 Comp. Cas.397 ). This appeal has been decided, but it is stated that the point involved in the present appeals was not settled by that Full Bench. This decision is reported in [1965] P. L. R.386.

3. I, therefore, direct that the papers of this case be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench to finally decide this matter, so that there is a clear precedent for the Tribunal, as well as for this court when similar matters arise again. JUDGEMENT Mehar Singh, C. J.

4. This judgment will dispose of three First Appeals Nos.117, 118 and 119 of 1962 from the order, dated June 28, 1962, of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. The appeals are by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, 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.

5. The findings of fact by the learned Tribunal are that on February 17, 1960, truck P. N. T.2749 was hired by Chhajju and Indar Singh at Rs.90 from Banarsi Das of Samana for carriage of hides from Samana to Phillaur. Chhajju and Indar Singh each paid Rs.30, but it is not clear who paid the remaining amount of Rs.30. Chhajju, Indar Singh, Niranjan Singh and Mangta placed their hides in the truck at various places about Samana. Dalip Singh worked jointly with his father, Indar 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 Benarsi Das. Although Mangta was a servant and a relation of Indar Singh, 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 Indar Singh. All these five persons were on the truck as owners of hides. Indar 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