Guman Mal Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS case has come up for consideration after the decision of the Full Bench in Santra Bai v. Prahlad 1985 ACJ 762 (Rajasthan). In pursuance of that decision, the following four categories have been evolved and the principles laid down: (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 employee 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, the deceased was the owner of the goods and he comes in the category No. (ii) according to the principles laid down by the Full Bench. It is common ground between the parties that since the deceased comes in the category No. (ii), he would be entitled to compensation from the owner of the vehicle. It is also common ground that the liability of the insurance company would be only upto Rs. 50,000/ -.
(3.) NOW coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it would be Rs. 60,000/ - because the deceased was of 25 years of age and the expected income to the dependant was Rs. 200/ - p.m. from the deceased; and the expectancy of life was treated as 60 years.;