Harishankar Tiwari And Etc. vs Jagru And Ors. on 19 November, 1986
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimants on the other hand has placed reliance on a Full Bench dscision of this Court in Harishankar Tiwari v. Jagru and Ors. 1981 A.C.J.-1 in which it has been held that the Insurance Company is liable to cover the risk of a hirer/agent or his employees travelling with the goods in a goods vehicle under proviso (ii) of Clause (b) of Section 95(1) as a passenger carried for reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. But that decision, in our opinion, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the instant case, it is not possible to hold on the basis of the evidence adduced that the deceased was travelling in the truck for safe carriage of the goods in the vehicle. It has not been proved that (he truck was hired for carrying the goods belonging to the deceased. The deceased and Lokendra Singh travelled in the truck consequent upon the driver agreeing to give them a lift on charging Rs. 5/-. In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 124/81, which was also disposed of by the Full Bench decision aforesaid, the policy itself has specified that six persons can be carried in the vehicle in question apart from the driver. No such stipulation is made in the policy pertaining to the instant case. On the contrary, it has been stated therein that the policy does not cover use for the conveyance of passengers for hire or reward. The truck in question, therefore, cannot be termed as a vehicle in which the passengers are carried for hire or reward within the meaning of the provision (ii) of Clause (b) of Section 95t (1) and, therefore, no statutory requirement of coverage of risk of the passenger like the deceased travelling in the truck in question can be presumed.