The insurance company is liable to pay compensation for the death of a person travelling in a truck along with his goods, if the person was travelling with the permission of the person in charge of the vehicle in the course of his employment and was permitted by the agent of the owner to travel as such.

( 1 ) AN accident took place on 11th June, 1978, at about 11. 00 a. m. near bus station, Sarsaul, police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur, in which one Kunwar Bahadur died. The deceased was travelling in truck bearing registration No. USA 1062 in which his goods were loaded for transport from Kanpur to Khaga. The truck overturned at the time of accident killing the deceased. Mohammad Rasid and Abdul Rahim, the appellants before this court, are owners of the said truck. A claim petition was brought against them by the legal representatives of the deceased, Jai Devi and others, for recovery of Rs. 1,01,000/- on account of damages, etc. It was disclosed that the truck was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and, therefore, the said insurance company was contended to be liable to pay the damages. Though various pleas were raised before the Tribunal, it will be of no purpose to go into their details as the position relating to details of accident has been worked out by Tribunal and has not been challenged before me. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 28,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/- with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum against the owners only holding that the insurance company could not be held liable because the deceased was travelling in a truck which was meant for carrying goods and not passengers. The Tribunal also made apportionment of the amount awarded but that too has not been challenged before me.

( 2 ) MOHAMMAD Siddiqui has brought this appeal with the prayer that the claim should have been decreed against the insurance company and the Tribunal was not justified in its finding that in the given circumstances the insurance company could not be held responsible.

( 3 ) UPON service of notice of the appeal, cross-objections were brought by Jai Devi and others, legal representatives of the deceased and they prayed that the Tribunal was not justified in limiting the claim to Rs. 28,000/- and in fact should have been decreed for the whole amount, i. e. , Rs. 1,01,000/ -.

( 4 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, cross-objector and the respondents, it can be safely said that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing the award against the insurance company. The Tribunal had itself made reference to several cases where the insurance company was held liable for damages in the case of death of persons travelling in a truck along with their goods and claims were decreed against the insurance company.

( 5 ) THE finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was travelling neither as passenger nor as trespasser but was travelling with the permission of the person incharge of the vehicle in course of his employment along with the goods that were being carried in the truck for freight paid and was permitted by the agent of the owner to travel as such has also not been assailed. The tribunal has itself observed that under law, the owner would thus be vicariously liable for the injuries caused to such a person and this observation was recorded after perusal of the case of pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC ). The tribunal had also referred to the decision in the case of Vanguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinnamal 1969 ACJ 226 (Madras ). However, this decision was not attracted to the facts of the present case as the deceased was not a servant of the owner of the truck. Different considerations come wherein a harm is caused to the servant during the course of employment. Again in the case of Meesala Suryanarayana v. Goli Satyavathi 1979 ACJ 513 (AP), the insurance company was held liable for the injury sustained by the owner of the goods who was permitted to travel with the goods with the consent of the driver. The Tribunal had also referred to the case of gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Malubai Menand 1981 ACJ 36 (Gujarat), wherein the insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation in similar circumstances. A proper