Bhat, J.:— These appeals arise out of the judgment and award of the M.A.C Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P(MV) No. 1352 of 1980. M.F.A No. 58 of 1986 is the appeal filed by the insurer and M.F.A No. 328 of 1986 by the claimant.

2. The claimant is a trader in paddy and rice. He hired a public carrier goods vehicle (lorry K.L.F 8606) for transporting paddy belonging to him. He was earning his livelihood by purchasing and husking paddy and selling rice. In the early hours of the morning on 13-2-1980, in the course of the Journey, the lorry collided with a parked lorry and the claimant sustained injuries. Alleging rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, the claimant filed petition claiming compensation of Rs, 95,230/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry. The driver and owner in their written statement denied rashness or negligence on the part of the driver and alleged that the parked lorry had no parking lights and there were iron rods protruding out and suddenly another lorry came from the opposite direction and to avoid collision, the driver of lorry K.L.F 8606 swerved the lorry which hit the projecting iron rods. The insurer admitted existence of an Act policy and contended that the claimant, being only a passenger of public carrier goods vehicle is not required to be covered under S. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’). The tribunal upheld the claim of the claimant and awarded Rs. 26,400/- as compensation and directed the insurer to pay the amount with interest and costs.

3. Learned counsel for the insurer contends that passengers cannot be carried in a goods vehicle for hire or reward and the owner of the goods is not a passenger for hire or reward nor a passenger travelling by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment as required in the second proviso to S. 95(1)(b) of the Act and hence the Act policy cannot cover such a person.

4. We may notice at the outset that in State Insurance Department v. Sosemma 1978 Ker LT 634 : (AIR 1979 Kerala 15) this court held that where an employee or agent of the owner of the goods accompanies goods in a goods vehicle, he does so in pursuance of contract of employment between him and his employer and is covered by the second part of the proviso aforesaid and the insurer under an Act policy in liable. The same view has been reiterated in Naseema v. Sebastian (1987) 1 Ker LT 370. We find that other High Courts have taken the same view. See Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Kaur AIR 1967 Punjab 486 (FB), Venguard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chinnammal AIR 1970 Madras 236, Channappa Chanavirappa Kotti v. Laxman Bhimappa Bajantri AIR 1979 Kant 93, Nasibdar Suba Fakir v. Adhia and Company AIR 1984 Bom 1 and Sentra Bai v. Prahlad AIR 1986 Raj 101 (FB).

5. So far as owner of the goods travelling in a public carrier goods vehicle is concerned, there is an observation in Naseema's case (1987) 1 Ker LT 370 approving the view taken by the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Santrabai v. Prahlad AIR 1986 Raj 101 that he is not a gratuitous passenger and he travels pursuant to a contract, hire being the consideration, and insurer under an Act policy is liable. In the decisions in Channappa Chanavirappa Ketti v. Laxman Bhimappa Bajantri AIR 1979 Kant 93, T.M Renukappa v. Fahmida AIR 1980 Kant 25, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nathiben Chatrabhuj AIR 1982 Guj 116 (FB), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gangamma AIR 1982 Kant 261, Abdul Razak v. Sharifunnisan AIR 1983 All 400 and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narayanibai AIR 1984 Orissa 43 it has been held that owner of goods travelling in goods vehicle is a passenger travelling for hire and is required to be covered by insurance. In Nasibdar Suba Fakir v. Adhia and Company AIR 1984 Bom. 1, Meesala Survanarayana v. Goli Satyavathi 1979 Acc CJ 513 (Andh Pra) and Harishankar Tiwari v. Jagru 1987 Acc CJ 1 : (AIR 1987 Madh Pra 234) (FB) the view taken is that owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle is a passenger for reward and is required to be covered by insurance. A contrary view has been taken in certain decisions of High Courts of Punjab, Madras, Calcutta and Andhra Pradesh. See Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Kaur AIR 1967 Punjab 486 (FB), Common Wealth Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V.P Rahim Khan Sahib AIR 1971 Madras 415, Hindustan Ideal Insurance Corporation Ltd. v. Manne Chimparamma AIR 1974 Andh Pra 120, Indian Mutual General Insurance Society Ltd. v. Manzoor Ashan AIR 1977 Cal 34, G. Dhyanand v. Zaamni Bi 1982 Acc CJ 399 : (AIR 1982 Madras 311) South India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Heerabai 1967 Acc CJ 65 (Madh Pra), Parkash Vati v. Delhi Dayal Bagh Dairy Ltd. 1967 Acc CJ 82 (Punjab), Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kasturi Lal 1968 Acc CJ 227 (Punjab), Common Wealth Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V.P Rahim Khan Sahib 1971 Acc CJ 295 : (AIR 1971 Madras 415) and C. Narayanan v. Madras State Palm Gur Sammelan AIR 1974 Madras 281.

6. Can passengers be allowed in public carrier goods vehicles? Section 2(8) of the Act defines “goods vehicles” as motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods and any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods solely or in addition to passengers. Section 2(25) defines “public service vehicle” as motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers for hire or reward. Section 2(33) defines “transport vehicle” as public service vehicle or goods vehicle. According to S. 42(1) no owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or goods) save in accordance with the conditions of permit granted authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used. Section 68 confers on the State Government power to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chap. IV. According to sub-sec. 2(y) the State Government may frame rules in regard to carriage of persons other than the driver in goods vehicles. Sub-sec. (2)(m) empowers the State Government to frame rules regarding the conditions subject to which goods may be carried on stage and contract carriages partly or wholly in lieu of passengers.

7. The definition of “goods vehicle” specifically contemplates carriage of passengers. That is also implicit in S. 68(2)(y). In other words, while goods vehicles are intended primarily for carriage of goods, incidentally they may carry passengers subject to the conditions of the permit. Similarly public service vehicles are primarily intended to carry passengers, but incidentally they may carry goods or luggage belonging to passengers.

8. The above view receives support from some of the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961, framed under S. 68 of the Act. Rule 56 deals with conduct of drivers of transport vehicles. Sub-rule (3) deals with conduct of driver of goods vehicle while on duty. Cl. (a) of Sub-rule (3) states that he “shall not carry in the cab of a goods vehicle persons beyond the number permitted and for whom there is seating accommodation as per sub-rule (2) of R. 31”. C1. (b) states that he “shall not carry more than six persons in all in addition to the driver in a goods vehicle”. Cl. (c) states that he “shall not carry any person for hire or reward in any goods vehicle unless there is in force in respect of the vehicle a permit authorising the use of the vehicle for such purpose and save in accordance with the provisions of such permit.” Rule 177 deals with permit form and time of issue. According to Cl. (1)(e), the form of permit in relation to goods vehicle is form P.P.U Rule 183 deals with carriage of goods in public service vehicle. Cl. (3) authorises the authorities to specify in the permit the maximum weight of passengers' luggage and goods which may be carried in addition to passengers. Further restriction relating to such luggage or goods is contained in sub-cl. (7) of R. 183 and R. 229. Rule 331 deals with seating in the cab of a goods vehicle. Cl. (1) deals with driver's seat. Cl. (2) deals with other persons in the cab of goods vehicle. Other persons are stated to be “as many persons as there is seating accommodation for at the rate of thirty eight centimetres for each person measured along with the seat excluding the space reserved for driver”. Cl. (6) of form P.P.U refers to “maximum load permitted to be carried ……persons in all and…….kg. on……..route.” The above provisions make it clear that in a public service vehicle luggage and goods of passengers can be carried subject to the conditions prescribed and in a goods vehicle, passengers can be carried subject to the maximum limit prescribed and the conditions of permit. Of course passengers for hire and reward unconnected with goods cannot be carried except as specially permitted by the permit.

9. There is obvious logic underlying the provisions enabling such passengers connected with the goods to be carried in goods vehicle. It may be necessary for the hirer of goods vehicle to travel in the vehicle or depute an agent or employee to travel in the vehicle to load and unload goods and to take care of and protect the goods while in transit. Where the owner of the goods or his employee travels in a goods vehicle he cannot be treated as a gratuitous passenger or a person who is given a free lift. It is only reasonable that law must extend protection of compulsory insurance to such persons also.

10. Section 94 deals with necessity for insurance against third-party risk. Sub-section states that no person shall use except as a passenger or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this chapter. S. 95 lays down the requirements of policies and limits of liability. We notice that sub-cl. (i) of cl. (b) of S. 95 refers to “damage to any property of a third-party”. There is no other reference to the words “third-party” in S. 95. Sec. 96 imposes on the insurer duty to satisfy judgments against persons injured in respect of persons on third-party risks. The words “third-party” are used in the heading of the Section but do not occur in the body of the Section.

11. In New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani AIR 1964 SC 1736 it is observed (at p. 1739):—

“Chap. VIII of the Act, it appears from the heading, makes provision for insurance of the vehicle against third-party risks, that is to say, its provisions ensure that third-parties who suffer on account of the user of the motor vehicle would be able to get damages for injuries suffered and that their ability to get the damages will not be dependent on the financial condition of the driver of the vehicle whose user led to the causing of the injuries. The provisions have to be construed in such a manner as to ensure this object of the enactment”.

(Emphasis supplied)

12. Considering the above provisions in the light of this broad interpretative principle, the words “third-party” occurring in S. 94 and the heading of S. 96 must be construed in an expansive manner to refer to anyone other than the insured and the insurer. This idea can be distilled also from the decision of the Supreme Court in Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1977 SC 1735. This decision dealt with the case of fatal injury to a passenger in a car belonging to a company and driven by the manager of the company who gave a lift to the deceased. The court observed in paragraph 20 that:

“The plea that the words “third-party” are wide enough to cover all persons except the person and the insurer is negatived as the insurance cover is not available to the passengers made clear by the proviso to sub-section (Section 95(1)(b)) which provides that a policy shall not be required except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of 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.”

The Supreme Court concluded:—

“Therefore it is not required that a policy of insurance should cover risk to the passengers who are not carried for hire or reward.”

What the above decision indicated is that the words “third-party” are not wide enough to cover gratuitous passengers in a private car. But as indicated by the Supreme Court, “third-party” would include passengers of certain categories excepted in the exception in proviso (ii) to S. 95(1)(b). Obviously “third-party” would take in persons other than insured and the insurer and also certain types of passengers.

13. We will now consider the provisions in S. 95 which deal with requirements of policies and limits of liabilities. The body of a sub-sec. (1) reads thus:

“In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which—

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer (or by a co-operative society allowed under Section 108 to transact the business of an insurer), and

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)—

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.

The provisions in Cl. (b) are subject to proviso which reads thus:

“Provided that a policy shall not be required—

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee—

(a) engaged in driving the 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, or

(ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of 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, or

(iii) to cover any contractual liability. We may also refer to the relevant provisions of sub-sec. (2), which read thus:

“(2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely—

(a) where the vehicle is a goods vehicle, a limit of one lakh and fifty thousand rupees in all, including the liabilities, if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, employees (other than the driver), not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle;

(b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment—

(i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all;

(ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passengers;

(c) save as provided in clause (d), where the vehicle is a vehicle of any other class, the amount of liability incurred;

(d) irrespective of the class of the vehicle, a limit of rupees six thousand in all in respect of damage to any property of a third party.

14. The statutory requirement is that the policy of insurance must be a policy issued by an authorised insurer. It should insure the person or class of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-sec. (2) of S. 95 against liabilities referred to in sub-cls. (i) and (ii) of cl. (ii) of cl. (b) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 95. Sub-cl. (i) deals with liability which may be incurred by insured in respect of any person or damage to any property of a third-party, caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. The liability arising under sub-cl. (ii) is against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle, caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Death or bodily injury may be to any person while damage to property must be of a third-party. It is clear that in the case of death or bodily injury it may be of or to any person. This would naturally include third parties in the strict sense of the word, passengers in other vehicles involved in the accident as also employees of the insured or of the owner of the goods being carried in the vehicle insured and certain categories of passengers. Passengers of public service vehicles are separately dealt with in sub-clause (ii). Therefore, sub-cl. (i) cannot be taken to include passengers in public service vehicles. In sub-cl. (i), there is no restriction regarding the persons or nature of the vehicle, while sub-cl. (ii) deals only with passengers of public service vehicle. We hold that sub-cl. (i) of cl. (b) of Section 95(1) takes in liability incurred by the insured in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including passengers in goods vehicle also. This is the I view taken in Channappa Chanavirappa Ketti v. Laxman Bhimappa Bajantri AIR 1979 Kant 93, Nasibdar Suba Fakir v. Adhia and Company AIR 1984 Bom 1 and Santra Bai v. Prahlad AIR 1986 Guj 101 (FB).

15. What exactly is the significance of provisos (i) and (ii) to cl. (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 95? By virtue of proviso (i) a policy is not required to cover liability incurred in respect of the death or bodily injury sustained by an employee of the insured in certain cases. To this proviso there is an exception in regard to liability arising under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the death of or bodily injury to driver of the vehicle, conductor or ticket examiner of a public service vehicle or any such employee of the insured being carried in a goods vehicle. Insured is naturally liable to take out a policy covering the persons falling within the exception to proviso (i).

16. By virtue of proviso (ii), compulsorily policy is not required to cover liability in respect of death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle, that is, passengers. The word “vehicle” occurring in proviso (ii) would mean any type of vehicle. As indicated by the Supreme Court in State Of Mysore v. Syed Ibrahim. AIR 1967 SC 1424 with reference to S. 42(1) of the Act, it is not merely the adaptation of the motor vehicle for use which is relevant; it is the use of the motor vehicle which is relevant. Proviso (ii) which is an exception to cl. (b) in as much as it states that passengers are not compulsorily required to be insured, contains an exception to this exception. The exception to the exception takes in passengers in vehicles in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment. The insured is required statutorily to be insured in regard to claims arising out of death or bodily injury to such passengers coming within the exception to the exception in proviso (ii). The requirement of policy in proviso (ii) applies irrespective of the nature of the vehicle whether it is goods vehicle or public service vehicle.

17. We have already indicated that law countenances passengers travelling in goods vehicle. The owner of the goods carried in a goods vehicle or his employee or his agent can be permitted to travel in the goods vehicle. While doing so they cannot be said to be travelling gratuitously. The owner of the goods pays hire for the goods vehicle to carry his goods. Where it becomes necessary for him to travel in the goods vehicle for the purpose of loading, unloading or taking care of the goods, the contract between him and the owner of the vehicle must necessarily imply permission for him or his agent to travel in the vehicle. This implied condition would also have been taken into consideration in fixing the hire. Hence it is clear that owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle is a passenger for hire and therefore his case is covered by the exception to the second proviso. In any view of the case, he must be regarded as a passenger travelling in the vehicle for reward. It has been argued before us that owner of the goods must also be taken to be a passenger travelling in the vehicle by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment. No doubt the expression “employment” would ordinarily mean engaging a person in service. Concise Oxford Dictionary explains the word “employed” as use thing or one's power, time” and the word “employment” as one's regular trade or profession”. One may engage a lorry for conveying goods. It can also be said that one employes a lorry for conveying goods. It is unnecessary to pronounce on this aspect. In either view, the insured is compulsorily liable to take out insurance policy against any liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to the owner of the goods travelling in the lorry. Hence under an “Act policy” the insurer in liable to indemnify in regard to such a liability.

18. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 95 deals with limits of liability. Cl. (a) deals with goods vehicle and stipulates the limit as 1,50,000/- in all, including the liability if any, arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to employees (other than the driver) not exceeding six in number, being carried in the vehicle. Cl. (b) refers to vehicles in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. The limit in regard to persons other than passengers is fifty thousand rupees and that in respect of passengers fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger. Cl. (b) is a general provision which relates to different kinds of vehicles. Provision in cl. (a) is a special provision regarding goods vehicles. When there is a special provision, that has to be preferred to a general provision. Hence the limit of liability in regard to goods vehicle is the one contained in cl. (a) namely, one lakh fifty thousand rupees in all. We therefore overrule the contention of the insurer that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation payable to the claimant in this case.

19. The claimant in dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded. He is a person who deals in rice. In the claim petition he claimed to have income of Rs. 900/- per month. At the stage of evidence he claimed income of Rs. 2,000/- per month. In the absence of reliable evidence, tribunal assessed income as Rs. 600/- per month and we agree with the assessment. On that basis he was awarded. Rs. 3,600/- towards loss of income for six months. He was awarded Rs. 500/- towards transport expenses, Rs. 2,875/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 125/- towards damage to clothing and articles. We find no reason to interfere with the award under these heads. As against the claim of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering he was awarded only Rs. 5,000/-. He sustained fracture on the upper and left tibia. He was in hospital for forty days. We are therefore of opinion that the award under this head is inadequate. He claimed Rs. 40,000/- for permanent disability and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of earning capacity and on these counts together the tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/-. The evidence does not disclose that there is any permanent disablement or loss of earning capacity. After recovering from the injury he has taken up his previous occupation. The doctor examined as P.W 3 deposed that the claimant can walk, sit and travel. P.W 2 deposed that the claimant is doing his work as before. In these circumstances we do not think there is any need to interfere with the compensation awarded on this count. Having regard to our finding regarding the inadequacy of amount awarded for pain and suffering, we increase the total compensation amount from Rs. 26,400/- to Rs. 30,000/-.

20. In the result, we dismiss M.F.A No. 58 of 1986. We allow M.F.A No. 328 of 11986 by increasing the total amount of compensation from Rs. 26,400/- to Rupees 30,000/- with interest and proportionate costs as directed by the tribunal. There will be no order as to costs in the appeals.

Order accordingly.