1. The insurer is not liable to pay compensation to gratuitous passengers traveling in an insured vehicle. 2. In case of composite negligence, the injured party can recover compensation from either or both of the negligent parties. 3. The owner of a vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligence of its driver.

Harbans Singh, J.

1. This order will dispose of L. P. A. 121 of 1973 and the connected L. P. As. 122 and 145 to 156 of 1973, which have arisen out of the same judgment of the learned Single Judge.

2. On 17th June, 1968, there was a collision between Haryana Government Roadways bus No. HRA-1246 with a private jeep No. PNC-1557 travelling in the opposite direction of Kaithal-Narwana road at a short distance from village Kalayat. The jeep, which belonged to one Raj Kumar and was being driven by one Amar Singh, had been given, out of friendship, to Mr. Chiranji Lal Bansal, a Superintendent in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who, alongwith his wife, Mrs. Bhagwanti, and two sons, Suresh Chander, and Subhash Chander was travelling in it together with Gora Lal, father of the owner of the jeep, and Prem Chand said to be a partner with Gora Lal in his business for running a liquor-vend. As a result of the collision the occupants of the jeep fared very badly. Chiranji Lal, Mrs. Bhagwanti, Suresh Chander and Prem Chand, besides the driver, Amar Singh, died while Subhash Chander escaped with some injuries. No claim was made for compensation on behalf of Amar Singh, the jeep driver. For the deaths of Chiranji Lal, Mrs. Bhagwanti and Suresh Chander, the surviving sons of Chiranji Lal, namely Mangat Ram, aged 23 years, Romesh Chander, aged 19 years, and Subhash Chander, aged 17 years, put in claims separately. A separate claim was put in by Subhash Chander in respect of the injuries received by him. Mrs. Parsani Devi, mother of Prem Chand, filed the fifth claim.

3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, came to the conclusion that both the bus driver and the jeep driver were negligent and they were held responsible for the accident in the ratio of 60 : 40. It was also held that the owner of the jeep had lent the vehicle free of any charges out of his friendship with Chiranji Lal deceased. No clear finding was given by the Tribunal holding the owner vicariously liable for the negligence of the jeep driver, but apparently this was assumed by the Tribunal, because it was held that the Life Insurance Corporation, the insurer of the jeep against third party risk, was liable to pay 40 per cent of the compensation awarded to the claimants. The total compensation awarded in respect of the death of Chiranji Lal was Rs. 73,873/- in respect of the death of Mrs. Bhagwanti was Rs. 14,280/- and in respect of the death of Suresh Chand was Rs. 10,000/-. Subhash Chander was awarded a sum of Rs. 8300/- after deducting the amount which had already been paid to him by the Haryana Goverment. Mrs. Parsani Devi, mother of Prem Chand, was awarded a compensation of Rs. 19,200/-. It was further directed by the Tribunal that 60 per cent of the amount of compensation was payable by the State of Haryana while 40 per cent was payable by the Life Insurance Corporation of India.

4. Fourteen appeals were filed against the order of the Tribunal. Out of them, five appeals (F. A. Os. 87 to 91 of 1971) were filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India contending that it was not liable to the passengers travelling in the jeep, because such a liability was not covered by the policy pf Insurance. Another set of five appeals (F. A. Os. 101 to 105 of 1971) was filed by the State of Haryana challenging its liability or the extent thereof in respect of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Four appeals (F. A. Os. 67 to 69 and 76 of 1971) were filed by the claimants excepting Mrs. Parsani Devi. All these appeals were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by one and the same judgment.

5. The learned Single Judge held that the Life Insurance Corporation of India is not liable to pay any compensation in respect of the death or injuries caused to the persons travelling in the jeep, because they were travelling as gratuitious passengers and had been given the vehicle for use out of friendship by the owner. The five appeals filed by the State of Haryana were also pa