Judgment Vinod Kumar Sharma, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of F.A.O. No. 103 of 1989 tilted New India Insurance Co. v. Smt. Jamela and Ors. F.A.O. No. 1274 of 1991, titled New India Assurance Co. v. Pritam Singh and Ors. and F.A.O. No. 1275 of 1991, titled The New India Assurance Co. Limited v. Smt. Champa Devi and Ors. All these appeals have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, Yamuna Nagar challenging the judgment passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhari (for short the Tribunal). 2. Three claim petitions were filed on the allegations that on the night intervening 8/9.7.1987 Pritam Singh injured/claimant along with deceased Ram Dia hired a truck bearing registration No. HPN-1229 at Khijrabad tax barrier for transporting his mango bags and from Chuharpur, Roshan Deen boarded the said truck with mango bags for the same purpose. They were to proceed towards Khanna Mandi. Suresh Chand, respondent No. 1, who was alleged to be in drunken condition was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner. It was also the case of the claimants that besides the mango bags, the truck was also loaded with heavy iron rods and when the truck had travelled 8 Kilometers from Jagadhari, it dashed against a Shisham tree and turned turtle and as a result thereof Ram Dia and Roshan Deen died at the spot, whereas Pritam Singh claimant suffered serious injuries on his both legs and other parts of the body. It is also the case of the claimants that on the basis of the statement of Pritam Singh injured First Information Report was registered at Police Station Chhappar against the driver of the truck. Champa Devi widow of Ram Dia along with her father-in-law and mother-in-law claimed an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation on account of death of Ram Dia, who was aged 20 years. Pritam Singh who was injured in the said accident had claimed compensation of Rs. 60,000/- on account of multiple injuries suffered by him whereas Jamela along with other legal representatives of Roshan Deen claimed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on account of the death of her husband Roshan Deen. 3. In the written statement on behalf of the respondents a stand was taken that the accident had taken place on account of failure of brakes. 2 lacs on account of the death of her husband Roshan Deen. 3. In the written statement on behalf of the respondents a stand was taken that the accident had taken place on account of failure of brakes. It was also the case of the respondents that the truck was hired for carrying the fruits and the injured and deceased persons had boarded the truck along with goods. The allegation of rash and negligent driving was denied by the respondents. The owner of the truck, in his written statement, denied the allegations of the truck being driven by Suresh Chand in a drunken condition. The allegation of rash and negligent driving was also denied. It was the further case of the owner that Roshan Deen and Ram Dia were travelling in the said truck as non-fare paying passenger and the accident had taken place on the account of negligence of Roshan Deen, hence the legal heirs of Roshan Deen are not entitled to any compensation. 4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it was stated that Roshan Deen was standing at Chandpur where he asked for lift from the driver of the truck who allowed him to sit. It was the case of the Insurance Company that Roshan Deen and Ram Dia were travelling as gratuitous passengers. 5. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: 1. Whether Roshan Deen and Dia had died and Pritam Singh had received injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck "No. HPN-1229? OPA 2. Whether the deceased and the injured were travelling in the truck No. HPN-1229 as gratuitous passengers and as such the insurance company is not liable for the damage/compensation? OPR-3 3. Whether Suresh Kumar respondent No. 1 did not hold any valid driving license and valid route permit at the time of accident? OPR 4. Relief. 6. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence on issue No. 1 came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the driver of the truck. It has also been held that Ram Dia and Roshan Deen died at the spot on account of the said accident and Pritam Singh had suffered injuries. While deciding issue No. 1 Jamela and others were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. It has also been held that Ram Dia and Roshan Deen died at the spot on account of the said accident and Pritam Singh had suffered injuries. While deciding issue No. 1 Jamela and others were granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,55,000/- and while deciding issue No. 2 Pritam Singh on account of his injures was granted a compensation of Rs. 12,500/-; whereas Champa Devi and others were granted a compensation to the tune of Rs. 99,000/-. 7. In case of Jamela and others cross-objections for enhancement had been filed which have been dealt with separately. 8. On issue No. 3 learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants were not travelling as gratuitous passengers and therefore, entitled to be indemnified by the Insurance Company. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal on issue No. 3. It is the case of the learned Counsel for the appellants that PW-3 in his statement had categorically stated that he had paid Rs. 7/- per bag of mangoes for travelling in the truck, and therefore, it has to be taken that he was a fare paying passenger and not non-fare-paying passenger and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner and driver of the truck. It was also contended by relying upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors. (2003-1) 133 P.L.R. 1 (S.C.), that the passengers travelling in the goods truck were not entitled to be indemnified by the Insurance Company as they were travelling in the goods truck in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. She also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Nanjappan and Ors. a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurdev Kaur and Ors. (1967) 69 P.L.R. 461 (F.B.) and judgment of Hon ble Supreme court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors., wherein the judgment passed in Asha Ranis case (supra), has been followed. So on the basis of the judgments referred to above, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the finding on issue No. 3 deserves to be reversed. 10. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors., wherein the judgment passed in Asha Ranis case (supra), has been followed. So on the basis of the judgments referred to above, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the finding on issue No. 3 deserves to be reversed. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the legal representatives of respondent No. 8, the owner of the truck, submitted that the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellant to contend that no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company or that the Insurance Company cannot be asked to indemnify the owner would not apply to the facts of the present case. He referred to the Insurance Policy, which was exhibited as Ex. R.3 to contend that respondent No. 8 had paid premium to cover authorised non-fare paying passenger in addition to liability to public risk. A reading of Ex. R.3 shows that the following premium was paid by respondent No. 8 i.e. Rs. 240/- for liability to public risk; Rs. 36/- to cover liability of authorised non-fare paying passenger and another sum of Rs. 56/- to cover up the liability of one conductor and five labourers. The total premium paid on these account was Rs. 432/- and besides that the policy was comprehensive. On the basis of the premium paid, learned Counsel for respondent No. 8 submitted that even in the case of Asha Rani (supra) Hon ble Supreme Court has taken note of this fact in order to cover the liability of owners of the goods, additional premium is required to be paid which has been done in the present case. He also placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore and Ors., to submit that if the risk with regard to the driver or passenger etc., in excess of statutory liability, if any, is sought to be covered it has to be clearly specified in the policy and separate premium paid therefore. He further made a reference to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Niranjan Singh v. Om Suta and Ors. to contend that though in the said case the claim was rejected but the reason thereof was that no premium was paid to cover the additional liability. This is not the case in the present case. 11. He further made a reference to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Niranjan Singh v. Om Suta and Ors. to contend that though in the said case the claim was rejected but the reason thereof was that no premium was paid to cover the additional liability. This is not the case in the present case. 11. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and find that in the present case the deceased and the injured were travelling in the truck as owner of the goods and therefore, were covered under the Insurance Policy as specific premium was paid to cover this risk. The reading of the evidence does not show that the deceased and the injured were travelling in the truck by paying fare. Rather the evidence on record shows that they had paid to hire the truck for carrying their goods i.e. mango bags and not for traveling, and therefore, their case would be securely covered under the Insurance Policy. Learned Tribunal took notice of this fact and no suggestion was made that they were travelling as gratuitous passengers in the truck. Thus, no fault can be found with the finding on issue No. 3 recorded by the Tribunal and the finding is, therefore, affirmed and it is held that the claim of deceased and the injured was covered in the Insurance Policy as premium has been paid to cover such risks. Consequently, finding no force, all the three appeals are dismissed.