G.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THESE two cross-appeals arise out of a common judgment cum award. These two cases were referred to a larger bench, along with other appeals. The full Bench has now sent it back with the following guidelines in Smt. Santar Bai and Ors. v. Prahlad and Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 111 of 1974 and Ors. connected appeals vide judgment dated 17th April, 1985: (i) in case of a gratuitous passenger going on joy ride or on his own responsibility, insurance company is not liable; (ii) in case of passengers carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment in any vehicle, the Insurance Company is liable. This would include owner of the goods as well as his employees; (iii) the insurer shall not be liable to cover liability in respect of employees of the insured in respect of the death of or bodily injury to, any such employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 if such employee is (a) engaged in driving such vehicle or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle or (c) if it is a goods vehicle being carried in the vehicle; (iv) the insurer shall not be liable to cover any contractual liability.
(2.) IN the present case, Nanda died in an accident while he was fetching 29 sheeps and goats in a truck No. RSM 6919 owned by Kishanlal, the non-claimant No. 1 and driven by Ramdhan-driver the non-claimant No. 2, insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., from Delhi. Nanda was sitting on the tool box. The claimants filed claim petition for Rs. 1,35,000/- but the Tribunal has allowed Rs. 21,600/- as compensation out of which Rs. 5,000/- are to be paid by the insurance company the respondent in both the appeals. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal is that the cattle carried at in the truck were of Nanda and his father Shriram. There is a finding of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. The claimants have filed this appeal and so also the owner of the truck. The insurance company has not filed any appeal.
(3.) THE owner-appellant has not challenged the finding regarding negligence and rashness but the main contention is that the insurance company should be made liable. The claimant's contention is that the insurance company should be made liable ; and that, the amount of Award is inadequate and it must be increased.;