THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO MACMA.NO.189 OF 2008 DT.30.04.2011 Between: Khetavath Cilkya Nayaka and others. Appellants Vs. G.Veeranna and another ……Respondents. JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 06.10.2007 passed in O.P.No.2074 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, the present appeal is filed. The appellants herein are the claimants in O.P.No.2074 of 2005. The Tribunal below while evaluating the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants/claimants, dismissed their claim against the second respondent-Insurance Company while awarding compensation against the owner of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable. The factum of accident is not disputed. As seen from the impugned order, Ex.B-1 policy did not cover the risk of the Cleaner, as the owner of the vehicle has not paid the premium for the Cleaner. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Insurance Company cannot deny the compensation in entirety on the ground that extra premium was not paid for Cleaner and insurer’s liability is limited to that extent as binding under Workmen’s Compensation Act. RW-1 who is the Officer of the Insurance Company is examined and filed Ex.B-1 copy of Policy. As seen from Ex.B-1 policy, it does not cover the coolie and the premium was paid to the driver alone. In the said circumstances, the petitioners cannot fasten any liability to the Insurance Company and if at all they are entitled, they can claim compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle. Since Ex.B-1 policy does not cover the risk of the other persons and the premium was paid to the driver alone, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation from the Insurance Company and they are entitled to recover the compensation amount from the first respondent alone. The Tribunal below while discussing the evidence on record and while taking into consideration Ex.B-1 policy, fastened liability against the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, I see no grounds to differ with the findings of the Tribunal below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J Dt.30.04.2011 tjs