S.S.SODHI,J. - (1.) THE controversy raised in this appeal is with regard to the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company for the amount awarded as compensation to the claimants.
(2.) THE facts relevant to this matter are that Pran Nath Kapila, who was travelling in the car PUV 9192 was killed when this car went and hit into a truck parked on the road side. This happened on March 30, 1978. The tribunal holding that the accident here had been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the car driver, awarded a sum of Rs. 72,000/- as compensation to the claimants, they being the widow and the minor children of the deceased as also his widowed mother. All the respondents including the Insurance Company with which the car had been insured wert held liable jointly and severally for the entire amount awarded. It was the contention of Mr. L.M. Suri, counsel for the Insurance Company that under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company is not required to cover liability in respect of passengers travelling in a vehicle involved in the motor accident. In this case, by virtue of a special premium having been paid by the insured, liability in respect of passengers stood covered to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and consequently the Insurance Company could not be held liable for an amount exceeding this sum. He cited in this behalf the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Ors. v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. and Anr. 1977 A.CJ. 343, where it was held that the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act excluded the liability of the Insurance Company regarding risks to passengers. This was later followed by this High Court in Smt. Tarawanti and Ors. v. Gurmel Singh and Ors. 1980 P.L.R. 644.
(3.) THE point urged by Mr. J.R. Mittal, counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, was that the risk in respect of Prem Nath Kapila, deceased, must be taken to have been covered by the provisions of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in view of the f that he was an employee of the owner of the car. The reference here being to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides that a policy of Insurance shall not be required : (ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by a reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect or the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises. In the context of the facts of this case, the essential point missed in this argument was that it was incumbent upon the claimants to show not only that there was a contract of employment between the deceased and the insured car owner, but also that he was a passenger in the car by reason of or in pursuance of such contract. In other words, merely being an employee could not bring the deceased under insurance cover. ;