-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.801 of 2010. United India Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur VERSUS Roshan son of late Shri Arjun and Another Date of Order :::: April 2nd 2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Pritam Bijlani, Counsel for the appellant-company *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the appellant-company and perused the impugned award as well as the record, which the learned counsel for the appellant-company produced before this Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is that the injured-claimant was not covered under the terms of the policy of insurance and, therefore, the appellant, insurance-company would not be liable to make the payment of compensation under the award. I have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-company and have also perused the copy of the cover-note in the instant case, which was given by the appellant-company for the tractor, in question. The cover-note bearing No.JRO/07-383250, which -2- was produced by the learned counsel for the appellant- company, shows that an additional premium of Rs.25/- was charged by the appellant-company towards liability for the workmen compensation, as admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-company, which is without any riders or limitation. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is that the aforesaid premium has been charged only in respect of the driver and not for any other person. So far as the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-company is concerned, I find from the aforesaid cover-note, which was produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant-company that while charging Rs.25/- towards the premium for liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the appellant-company has not specified or limited its liability only as against any claim for damages or compensation in respect of the driver alone. In that view of the matter, since the appellant has charged premium for covering the risk under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-company by charging of Rs.25/- as premium for the said purpose the appellant has undertaken the liability to indemnify the injured for any liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the same cannot be said to be restricted for the driver alone. -3- In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any force in this miscellaneous appeal. No substantial questions of law arise in this miscellaneous appeal. The miscellaneous appeal and the stay application are accordingly dismissed summarily. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/