THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2685 of 2001 JUDGMENT: Late Papa Rao, husband of 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 5, was travelling in a van, bearing No.AP 30 T 959, owned by respondent No.7 and insured with the appellant, on 25.04.1997, at Lollaputtuga junction of Srikakulam District. The vehicle was negotiating a curve with speed, as a result of which, Papa Rao fell down and came under that very vehicle. He died on the spot. Respondents 1 to 5 (for short ‘the respondents’) filed M.V.O.P.No.399 of 1997, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Srikakulam, claiming a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-, as compensation. It was pleaded that Papa Rao was traveling, in the van, loaded with cement bags, as a khalasi, and that he was aged 40 years. According to them, the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/-, per month. The O.P., was mainly contested by the appellant herein. It denied its liability, by stating that the deceased was not employed as khalasi, and even if he is so, it is not liable to pay the compensation. Through its order, dated 14.02.2001, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-, as compensation, and apportioned the same among the respondents. The same is challenged in this appeal. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri K.Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. The occurrence of accident, as such, is not disputed. On behalf of respondents, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were filed. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant. Ex.A.2 is the copy of post-mortem certificate and Ex.A.4 is the charge sheet in C.C.No.45 of 1997. Before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, the contention of the appellant is that the deceased was not employed as a khalasi. In the O.P. itself, it was clearly mentioned that the deceased was working as khalasi. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant to dispute that contention. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, in Rama Shray Singh v. New India Assurance Co., Ltd.[1]. That is a case, in which, a passenger vehicle, namely, Trekkar was involved in accident and compensation was claimed in respect of a person employed in it. Taking note of the relevant provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in respect of such vehicles, only driver and conductor are covered and not any other person. The present case stands on a different footing, inasmuch as what is involved is a goods vehicle. Clause (c) of proviso to Section 147 (1)(b) of the Act, clearly makes it obligatory that a policy must cover the liability towards a person, who is being carried, in a goods vehicle. However, the liability is limited to the one under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore, the said judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:10.09.2009 GJ [1] 2003 ACJ 1550