THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.143 OF 2003 DATED:04-12-2009 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Divisional Manager, Guntur. ..... APPELLANT And Singari Siva Sankara Reddy & another. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 25-09-2002, in O.P.No.1071 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the claim of the 1st respondent herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.43,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injury sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10-03-1996. According to the claimant, he was working as a Cleaner on the Willeys van bearing No.APH 5115 and that on that day, while he was proceeding in the van from Vinukonda to Karempudi the vehicle overturned near Reddypalem village due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. A case in Cr.No.12 of 1996 was registered by the Bandlamotu police. The claimant was taken to Government hospital, Guntur, where he underwent treatment for three months as inpatient and subsequently he became permanently disabled on account of the injuries. 4. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The appellant- insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying the liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimant. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the appellant- insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver and the said finding is not seriously challenged in this appeal. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.43,400/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. The quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is also not under challenge. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the risk in respect of the claimant, who claims to be the Cleaner of the vehicle, is not covered by the policy and therefore the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. 8. A perusal of the policy-Ex.B1 would show that it was an Act policy, whereunder premium of Rs.800/- is paid towards coverage of risk in respect of the third parties. Ex.B.1-policy also shows that no separate premium is paid in respect of the Cleaner or any other person. As the policy does not cover the risk in respect of the Cleaner, no liability can be fastened on the appellant-insurer for payment of the compensation. The claimant is however at liberty to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle. It is stated that as per the interim order, dated 10-01-2003, the appellant has deposited half of the decretal amount with interest and costs and by virtue of the interim order, dated 05-02-2004, the claimant was permitted to withdraw half of the amount deposited without furnishing security. 9. Having regard to the fact that the claimant is a poor villager and the amount involved is small, the amount already withdrawn by the claimant may not be recovered at this length of time. It is open to the appellant-insurer to recover the said amount, already withdrawn, from the owner of the vehicle. 10. I n RAMASHRAY SINGH v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS [1], the apex Court held that: “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 up to the insured amount irrespective of the actual loss suffered”. 11. In the above case, the deceased was a Khalasi and it was contended that the policy was a comprehensive one and it would cover all risks including the death of Khalasi. Rejecting the said contention, the apex Court held that: “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”. 12. In the circumstances, the impugned award is modified duly exonerating the appellant-insurer from any liability for the payment of compensation awarded. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed subject to the above modification. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04th December, 2009 Tsy [1] 2003 ACK 1550