K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in m. V. C. No. 1625 of 1997 sustained personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The petition averments disclose that the petitioner was travelling in a goods vehicle as a spare driver. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 75,100 and directed the owner and insurer of the goods vehicle to pay the compensation. The insurer is in appeal to avoid liability on the ground that there is no statutory coverage for petitioner. ( 2 ) THE relevant provision of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads thus: "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-XXX XXX XXX provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. " (Italics emphasised by me) ( 3 ) THE words 'engaged in driving' would not necessarily mean that driver should be actually driving at the time of accident. The said words include a spare driver who is also obviously engaged for driving but on shift basis. The provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the Tariff regulations permit engaging a spare driver in the course of long journeys. It is for the personal safety of the drivers and for public safety in the long journeys the drivers would drive on shift basis. The act policy covers the risk of only a driver. In case of spare driver, the Tariff regulations do permit coverage of risk of a spare driver on payment of additional premium. ( 4 ) THE Act policy covers the risk of only one driver. The act policy covers the risk of only a driver. In case of spare driver, the Tariff regulations do permit coverage of risk of a spare driver on payment of additional premium. ( 4 ) THE Act policy covers the risk of only one driver. If there are claims by the driver and the spare driver for compensation, the insurer is liable to pay only one claim, unless additional premium is collected in respect of the spare driver. In the instant case, there is only one claim by the driver whose duty was to drive on shift basis. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. ( 5 ) THE decision of this court in Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kashim, 1996 ACJ 928 (Karnataka), lays down that even in the case of spare driver in case of goods vehicle, the liability of the insurer is not otherwise excluded by virtue of the provisions of rule 100 of Motor Vehicles Rules and section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles act which permits statutory cover for employees employed in connection with the motor vehicle. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation is untenable. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit is to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. Appeal dismissed.