HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA. No. 1063 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed challenging the order of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad by the New India Insurance Company. 2. Before the lower Court, the claimant filed the W.C.No.231 of 2004 on 20.06.2005, seeking a relief of Rs.2,75,417/-. 3. The other side filed a counter on the basis of the rival claims. Proper issues were claimed and A.W.1 and A.W2 were marked on behalf of the applicants and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the first opposite party, none was examined. On behalf of the second opposite party R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. 4. The lower Court on evidence held that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the applicant for the loss of earning capacity suffered by him due to the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 02.10.2004 which arose out of and in the course of his employment as a cleaner on the insured the lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 286 in the employment of the 1st opposite party and awarded a sum of Rs.2,75,417/-. 5. Aggrieved thereby, the New India Insurance Company filed this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on provisions of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act contended that law of the injured in respect of the third party risk covers only the persons specified in the policy and that as the applicant was not covered by the policy as he was a cleaner of the lorry, the Commissioner ought to have held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. In support of her contention she relied on the Supreme Court judgment reported in RAMASHRAY SINGH V NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[1]. 7. It is also contended that the learned counsel ought not to have held that the premium paid under head “Workmen Compensation to Employee-1” indicated that the insurer had paid directly covering risk of cleaner over and above he risk of the Tribunal and thus in coming to the conclusion that the risk of the driver was included in the premium paid under the third party risk. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the liability towards injuries is statutory and mandatory and that any basic party would cover it and therefore insurer would not be under obligation to pay extra premium to cover the liability towards the cleaner of the vehicle. 9. Having heard the learned counsel on either sides, and perusal of the record, it is seen that there is nothing on record to show that the premium was paid to cover the risk to the cleaner of the vehicle. On the contrary, the policy shows that the premium was made for “Workmen Compensation to Employee-1” and there is no payment of premium for cleaner. In the instant case, it is act policy, and it is seen from the record that the policy shows premium was made for the “Workmen Compensation to Employee-1”, the insurance policy covers only the person or classes of persons specified in the policy therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of cleaner of the vehicle. In the circumstances, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramashray Singh’s Case (Supra), the appeal is allowed holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. No costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J March 03, 2011 SP/KK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No. 1063 OF 2005 March 03, 2011 SP/KK [1] (2003) 10 SCC 664