Honble KOKJE, J.–This is an appeal arising out of the Workmens Compensation Claim. The short point is as to whether the Insurance company could be held to be liable under the policy taken out by the owner of the vehicle. The claim was in respect of death of the driver employed by the owner of the vehicle insured. The cover note of record shows that it was a comprehensive policy. No special premium was paid for covering the driver or any third party. (2) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jugal Kishore & Ors. (1) a comprehensive insurance of the vehicle does not mean that the limit of the liability with regard to third party risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability fixed under sub-Section (2) of Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accord- ing to this decision a specific agreement has to be arrived at between the owner and the Insurance company and separate premium has to be paid on the amount of liability under taken by the Insurance company if an additional risk is to be covered. It is also observed in the aforesaid decision that if risk of any other nature for instance, with regard to the driver or passengers etc., in excess of statutory lia- bility, if any, is sought to be covered it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium paid therefor. The statutory liability under Section 95 (2) (a) only covers liability arising under the Workmens Compensation Act in respect of the death or bodily injury to employees other than the driver, not exceeding six. Thus, there is no statutory liability in respect of a driver. The contention of the learned counsel, therefore, is correct that in the present case the special additional premium not being paid for covering the risk in respect of the driver also, the Insurance company was not liable. (3). The second contention raised by the learned counsel need not be gone into because that is an alternate submission that atleast the penalty and interest could not have been passed on to the Insurance company. (4). The appeal is, therefore, allowed the impugned order so far as it fastens the liability on the Insurance company is set aside. (3). The second contention raised by the learned counsel need not be gone into because that is an alternate submission that atleast the penalty and interest could not have been passed on to the Insurance company. (4). The appeal is, therefore, allowed the impugned order so far as it fastens the liability on the Insurance company is set aside. The Insurance Company Has Already paid the claim Which It Shall Be Able To Recover From The owner of the vehicle by moving an application before the commissioner for Workmens Comp- ensation.