HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.Nos.840, 841 and 842 of 2007 JUDGMENT: These three appeals are filed by United India Insurance Company Limited against three awards dated 29.01.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle in O.P.Nos.223 of 2005, 226 of 2005 and 262 of 2005, by which the lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.33,000/-, Rs.33,000/- and Rs.1,60,000/- to the claimants in the respective O.Ps. Claimants in O.P.Nos.223 and 226 of 2005 are the injured. Claimants in O.P.No.262 of 2005 are dependants of the deceased in the same accident. There is no dispute about factum of accident, which took place on 19.12.2004 at about 9.15 A.M. involving tractor bearing No.AP 26 T 3063 and trailor bearing No.AP 26 T 3062. The two injured and the deceased were travelling in the trailor of the tractor at the time of accident. The vehicle combination was insured with the appellant under farmers package insurance. Apart from basic premium, specific premium was paid by the owner to the driver alone. No specific premium was paid to any coolies or workers travelling in the trailor. It is the contention of the claimants that the two injured and the deceased were travelling in the trailor as coolies for transport of manure to the field of the owner-cum-driver. There is no dispute in this appeal about the owner-cum-driver drove the vehicle combination in rash and negligent manner and it resulted in this accident. The appellants’ counsel contended that as per Section 147(1)(b) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (in short, the Act), the policy has to necessarily cover risk of owner of goods or his authorized representative carried in a goods vehicle and that as per proviso- (i) thereof, the policy is not required to cover liability in respect of the employees arising out of and in the course of employment. It is contended that to cover risk of employees, the insured has to specifically pay premium covering the employees and specifying the number of employees covered by the policy. It is seen from definitions of “goods carrier”, “tractor” and “trailor” contained in Sections 2(14), 2(44) and 2(46) of the Act, a trailor attached to a tractor is a different one from a goods carrier. Therefore, it is necessary for the insured to get risk of employees working on the tractor and trailor also included in the policy by paying specific premium in respect thereof. Otherwise, there is no legal coverage of risk of employees or coolies working for any purpose in the trailor of a tractor. As pointed out earlier, Ex.B.1 copy of policy reveals that no specific premium was paid in respect of coolies or employees working on the insured vehicle combination in this case. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v Serjerao and others[1] the Supreme Court ruled out any liability for the insurance company to pay compensation in respect of labourers travelling in trollies, by holding: “So far as the question of liability regarding labourers travelling in trollies is concerned, the matter was considered by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Brij Mohan and others (2007(7) SCALE 753) and it was held that the Insurance Company has no liability. In view of the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, we set aside the impugned order in each case and remit the matters to the High Court to consider the matters afresh in the light of what has been stated by this Court in Smt.Yallawwas case (supra) and Brij Mohans case (supra).” This Court in Gangala Raju v Rayavarapu Apparao[2], following the above verdict of the Supreme Court held that as the premium paid does not cover the labourers, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for death of the deceased who was a labourer travelling in the trailor. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that award of compensation for the claimants in all these three cases by the lower Tribunal is not in accordance with law. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed setting aside the awards passed by the lower Tribunal to the extent of absolving liability of the appellant-Insurance Company. No costs. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 16th November, 2010. PNV [1] 2007 AIR SCW 7280 [2] 2010(4) ALT 8