HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No.1381 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award in W.C. Case No.01 of 2002 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy District, Circle-II, T.Anjaiah Karimika Sankshema Bhavan, RTC Cross Roads, Hyderabad, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. A claim for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was filed consequent on the death of the deceased Mosin in a motor accident. 3. According to the case of the applicants, the deceased was Mechanic. On 19.07.1996 when the deceased was discharging his duties on the DCM Van bearing No.MCT 2705, which was insured with the appellant herein, met with an accident and he died. Consequently, the claim was made for compensation. The appellant herein resisted the claim and contended that it is not liable to pay the compensation as there is no liability under the policy. After considering the evidence on record, the Commissioner has granted a compensation of Rs.1,65,474/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. 4. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation? 5. POINT: There is no dispute about the nature of the incident and the quantum of compensation. The appellant contended that the policy does not cover the risk of the mechanic and therefore, there is no liability. The Commissioner has taken into consideration the evidence of RW.2 and also the policy, which is an Act policy and Section II of the Insurance Policy is said to deal with claims for death or bodily injury and consequently, the commissioner found that the deceased was a third party and the claimants are entitled for compensation. 6. Evidently, the risk is to be covered only as per the terms of the policy. The vehicle is a goods vehicle and the statute prescribes insurance of the driver of the vehicle as mandatory. Unless and until the policy covers the risk of other persons, there cannot be any liability while travelling in the vehicle and they cannot also be considered as third parties to cover the risk. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following decisions: 1) Dudekula Salabee Vs. R.Siva Sankar Reddy and another[1] 2) Gangala Raju and others Vs. Rayavarapu Apparao and others[2] 3) Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others[3] 4) New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Lodya Shankar[4] 7. The above cited decisions clearly lays down that a mechanic or any other person travelling in the vehicle is not covered unless the policy premium is paid. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the deceased cannot be treated as a third party and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable. However, it is noted that as per the directions of this Court, half of the amount was directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company and permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants. Therefore, the claimants shall proceed against the owner of the vehicle for recovery of the balance amount and the appellant is at liberty to recover the amount already paid from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:28.12.2011 INL [1] 2008(1) ALD 161 [2] 2011 ACJ 463 [3] 2003 ACJ 1550 [4] 2004(3) ALD 400