Smt. Santra Bai And Etc. Etc. vs Prahlad And Ors., Etc. Etc. on 17 April, 1985
45. As pointed out in the Full Bench case in Santra Bai v. Prahlad (supra) in Clause (i) of the proviso it is stated that policy is not required in the three cases (a), (b), (c) above referred to. In other cases of employees of the owner of the vehicle, it must be treated as covered by Clause (ii) of the proviso, making the Insurance Company liable. In that case, while dealing with employees of the hirer of a goods vehicle it was held that
Now so far as the employees of the owner of the vehicle are concerned, if carried in goods vehicle, they would be covered under Sub-clause (c) of Clause (i) to the proviso of Sub-section (1) of Section 95. Thus, the other category of passengers carried in a vehicle in pursuance of a contract of employment under Clause (ii) of the proviso will be those, who would be employees of the owners of the goods or of such person who had hired such goods vehicle.