JUDGMENT The appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved by the liability fastened on it by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in a sum of Rs. 89,699/- in respect of the injuries sustained by respondent I-cleaner in an accident. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Sri AN. Krishna Swamy. The learned Counsel for respondent 2 is absent and respondent 1, though served, has remained absent. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the only short point that requires consideration in this case is that whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to respondent I-cleaner. The facts are not in dispute and the only aspect of the matter is that whether the policy in question, marked as Ex. R. 1, did cover the case of respondent I-cleaner or not. Referring to the observations made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation at page 7 of the impugned order, it was submitted that though the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation concedes that the policy did not cover a cleaner but it only covered the driver and the conductor, yet, taking into account the social welfare legislation, he has burdened the appellant-Insurance Company with the liability. 4. In the light of the submissions made as above, I have carefully perused the material placed. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has also observed in the course of his order at page 7 that the maxi-cab in question was covered by a policy and as per Ex. R. 1, it is only the driver and the conductor who are covered, but not the cleaner. Even after observing as above, the Commissioner has proceeded to hold that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation awarded. In my view, taking note of the liability owed by the Insurance Company, as per Ex. R. 1, the case of the cleaner is not covered by the said policy and, therefore, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation could not have fastened the appellant-Insurance Company with the liability. In this regard, a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramashray Singh v New India Assurance Company Limited and Others!, referred to by the appellant's Counsel has to be pressed into service. In this regard, a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramashray Singh v New India Assurance Company Limited and Others!, referred to by the appellant's Counsel has to be pressed into service. The Supreme Court has observed in the said case that the words 'any person' or 'passenger' occurring in Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 although are wide enough in amplitude, they do not cover the employees other than those mentioned in proviso in clause (b), and the plea that the policy covers cleaner, therefore, cannot be accepted. 5. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case and in particular Ex. R.1, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation could not have saddled the liability on the appellant and, as such, the said part of the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation requires to be set aside. 6. In the result, I pass the following order: The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation fastening liability on the appellant-Insurance Company is set aside and the rest of the order is however maintained. The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO 13-10-2006 Learned Counsel Sri Hanumantha Reddy Sahukar appearing for respondent 2 submits that the claimant in question was not only a cleaner but also a conductor and therefore the Insurance Company is liable. I do not find any merit in the said submission in view of the material placed on record and the reasons already assigned by me in the course of the order and as such the order does not require any change.