IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH [30TH] DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A. No.1247 of 2008 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Anantapur … Appellant And: Gajuguduru Pullamma & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.1247 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.07.2008 in W.C.No.92 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, wherein, the claim of the respondents 1 to 4 was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,02,756/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of application, till realization. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed application before the learned Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs.3,88,880/- on account of the death of the deceased G.Obulesu, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.03.2001. The first applicant is the wife, the applicants 2 and 3 are children and 4th applicant is the mother of the deceased. According to the applicants, the deceased was employed as a labourer for loading and unloading in the tractor- trailer bearing No.AP 04 T 7573/7574 belonging to the 5th respondent herein and that on 19.03.2001 while the deceased along with others, transporting gravel in the tractor-trailer, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, the vehicle dashed against the speed breaker near old bus stand, Pulivendla and the deceased fell down and the rear tyre of the tractor ran over him, resulting in the death of the deceased. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 45 years and was earning Rs.150/- per day. 4. The owner of the tractor-trailer filed counter admitting the accident and also the employer and employee relationship between herself and the deceased, but however, contending that the tractor was insured and the policy was in force and any liability for compensation may be fastened on the insurer. The appellant-insurer filed separate counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation, inter-alia contending that there was no coverage in the policy for the risk of the labourer. 5. During enquiry, before the learned Commissioner, the applicants examined AW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and on behalf of the opposite parties, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Commissioner held that the deceased was employed as a labourer on the tractor-trailer and he died in the accident, which occurred in the course of such employment. Taking the ages of the deceased at Rs.2,393.95 and applying the suitable multiplier factor of 169.44 applicable to the age of the deceased, the learned Commissioner estimated the compensation payable at Rs.2,02,756/- and accordingly, award was passed for the said amount together with stamp duty of Rs.678/- and interest at 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no coverage in the policy for the risk of any labourer and no additional premium was paid in respect of any employee or labourer. The copy of the policy would show that basic premium was paid for the third party risk and additional premium was paid for third party property damage and personal accident coverage. The copy of the policy would show that no additional premium was paid in respect of any labourer or employee. 8. In ‘Ramashray Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,[1]’ the apex Court held as follows: “The appellant's next submission was that the concerned employee was a 'conductor'. It is doubtful whether a 'khalasi' and a conductor are the same. But assuming this were so, there is nothing to show that the appellant had paid any additional premium to cover the risk of injury to a conductor. On the contrary, the policy shows that premium was paid for 13 passengers and 1 driver. There is no payment of premium for a conductor. The appellant's final submission was that as the policy was a comprehensive one, it would cover all risks including the death of the khalasi. The submission is unacceptable. An insurance policy only covers the person or classes of persons specified in the policy. A comprehensive policy merely means that the loss sustained by such person/persons will be payable upto the insured amount irrespective of the actual loss suffered. [See: New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. J.M. Jaya; Collinvaux's: Law of Insurance (7^th Edition) p. 93-94]. Consequently, although the appellant's claim under the insurance policy arose under the Workmen's Compensation Act, since the concerned employee was not engaged in the capacity of driver in respect of whom alone premium was paid apart from the passengers, his claim is unsustainable.” 9. In ‘Dudekula Salabee vs. R. Sivasasankar Reddy[2]’, this Court held as follows: “The first part i.e., Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, deals with the requirements of policies. In other words, different kinds of policies can be taken covering different contingencies, different persons, different vehicles and different risks. Further, it appears from Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act that the owner has a discretion to take a policy or policies covering person or persons, in which case, basing on the nature and the terms and conditions of the policy, the premium has to be paid. It implies that unless and until premium is paid, depending upon the nature of the policy or the terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer is not under obligation to pay the compensation beyond the scope of agreement under the policy. In other words, it is not mandatory for the insured to take policy or policies covering all types of persons or all types of vehicles or risks. Though under Sub-clause (c) of Clause (i) of Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act, it is mentioned that "if it is a goods carrier being carried in a vehicle..." the policy need not be taken, I am of the view that it does not mean that the insurer is automatically liable. By necessary implication, when there is no requirement to take policy and consequently, when no policy is taken, no risk can be covered by any policy. Therefore, the language employed in Sub-clause (c) cannot be relied on nor it is useful in any manner to the claimant. In this context, it is to be seen that Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act refers to Sub-section (2) of Section 147. Sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the Act is in the nature of exception to Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act. A bare perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the Act makes it obvious that the coverage of policy is limited to the extent mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the Act only. Therefore, it further implies that a policy has to be necessarily taken if the insured wants coverage of a class or classes of persons. In any event, there must be a contractual obligation in the shape of insurance policy and there must be a specific condition under the policy covering a person or persons like the deceased in the present case. It presupposes and as decided by the apex Court, in various judgments, a separate premium has to be paid for such a person or classes of persons and then only, the obligation of indemnification by the insurer does arise”. 10. In ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Suraya Bee[3]’, this court held as follows: “Section 147 of the Act contains mandate requirements to be complied with when policy is obtained/issued under Chapter XI of the act. As per the proviso (i) to section 147(1) of the Act, policy issued under Chapter XI is not required to cover liability of death arising out of and in course of his employment of employee of a person insured other than the driver and conductor of vehicle. Therefore, cleaner of first lorry is not required to be covered under policy. Section 147(2) of the Act lays down that the policy of insurance referred to in Section 147(1) of the Act shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident up to the limits mentioned therein. Therefore, if an extra premium is paid for cleaner, insurer is required to indemnify owner of vehicle against any third party risks. Thus unless and until extra premium is paid under contract of insurance, cleaner is not covered under policy.” 11. The decision of the Apex Court in Ramashsray Singh’s case (first supra) was also referred and followed in the above decision. 12. In ‘Gangala Raju & others vs. Rayavarapu Apparao[4]’, this Court held as follows: “A perusal of the policy shows that premium has been paid only for driver of the tractor. As the premium does not cover the labourers, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation for the death of the deceased, who was, allegedly, a labourer travelling in the trailer’. 13. In the present case, as seen from the copy of the policy, no additional premium was paid in respect of any employee or labourer. When that is so, in the light of the principles laid down by the apex Court in Ramashsray Singh’s case (first supra), which was followed by this Court in the decision in Suraya Bee’s case (4th supra), there is no contractual obligation on the part of the appellant/insurer to pay any compensation, in respect of the deceased, who was labourer and whose risk was not covered by the policy. Hence, no liability can be fastened on the appellant/insurer for payment of the compensation. 14. It is stated that in pursuance of the interim order dated 29.01.2010, the applicants 1 to 4 have withdrawn Rs.15,000/- each from out of the amount deposited by the appellant. Having regard to the fact that the applicants are very poor and illiterate villagers and unfortunate victims, who have lost the bread winner of the family, the appellant-insurer may not recover the said amount of Rs.60,000/- already withdrawn by the applicants. It is however open to the appellant-insurer to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle. It is also open to the applicants to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act, Kadapa, is modified accordingly. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 30.08.2010 bss [1] (2003) 10 SCC 664 [2] 2008(1) ALD P.161 [3] 2009(2) An WR P.335 [4] 2010(4) ALT P.9