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