JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the order dated 21st August, 2003 passed by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ranchi in C.W. Case No. 29 of 2002 whereby he has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,03,850/- on account of death of a cleaner (khalasi) of the vehicle in an accident. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The claimants filed application before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ranchi for grant of compensation stating inter alia that the deceased Jubair Khan was under the employment as Khalasi (cleaner) in the Mini bus owned by Samsher Alam bearing registration No. BR-14P 3864. On 8.7.2002 about 10 a.m. the deceased was returning to Lohardaga and the driver of the said Mini bus was driving bus in rash and negligent manner and uncontrolled speed. When the mini bus reached near Maltuti more at Ranchi- Lohardaga road, the driver stopped the bus and the deceased came down from the bus. The other passengers also came down from the bus and suddenly the bus driver started the bus as a result of which deceased was dashed forcefully from the bus and fell down. He received grievous injury and died on the spot. F.I.R. was lodged in connection with the said accident. 3. Respondent-owner of the vehicle filed written statement stating inter alia that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the bus driver. It was stated that the mini bus was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and according to the terms of the policy, compensation is to be paid by the Insurance Company for the death of the deceased Khalasi of the said vehicle. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed written statement stating inter alia that the driver has not been impleaded as party. It was stated that no information regarding the alleged accident was given by the owner of the vehicle and there is no document to justify that the deceased was cleaner (khalasi) of the said mini bus. It is further stated that the vehicle was insured subject to certain terms, conditions, restriction and exceptions contained in the policy whereby Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of the death of a cleaner of the vehicle. 5. It is further stated that the vehicle was insured subject to certain terms, conditions, restriction and exceptions contained in the policy whereby Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of the death of a cleaner of the vehicle. 5. The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ranchi after hearing the parties and after considering all the defense taken by the Insurance Company recorded a finding that there was no conductor employed in the said mini bus and in fact deceased was not only discharging the duty of cleaner but also used to collect fare from the passengers as a conductor. The Commissioner further recorded a finding that inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the Insurance Company to produce the proposal on the basis of which Insurance Policy was issued to substantiate the fact that cleaner was not covered, no proposal form was produced. Then the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ranchi held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 6. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company assailed the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ranchi as being illegal and contrary to weight of the evidence and the materials available on record. Learned Counsel submitted that the deceased being a Khalasi was not covered under the policy of Insurance and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation amount. In this connection learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Ors. (2003) 3 JLJR-172 (SC). 7. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned Counsel submitted that the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case referred hereinabove does not apply in the present case. According to the learned Counsel admittedly, no conductor was employed in the mini bus and the job of collecting fare and regulating entry and exits of the passengers from the bus was done by the cleaner, which was covered under the policy. Learned Counsel submitted that in no case Insurance Company can disown the liability of payment of compensation. 8. In Ramashray Singh case (Supra) the deceased was employed as Khalasi of the vehicle, which met with an accident resulting his death. The legal heirs of the deceased filed claim in Workmens Compensation Court against the appellant as the owner of the vehicle and against the respondent-Insurance Company. 8. In Ramashray Singh case (Supra) the deceased was employed as Khalasi of the vehicle, which met with an accident resulting his death. The legal heirs of the deceased filed claim in Workmens Compensation Court against the appellant as the owner of the vehicle and against the respondent-Insurance Company. The Commissioner, Workmen Compensation held that vehicle was comprehensively insured and since accident occurred during the period of insurance, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The decision was challenged by the respondent-Insurance in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court allowed the writ application holding that in absence of any special contract between the owner and the insurer, the rights of the parties were governed by statute, which did not require the respondent to cover liability in respect of the accident to a Khalasi. The said judgment was challenged by the owner of the vehicle before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after considering the policy and statutory provisions held that Khalasi was not covered under the policy. It was argued before the Supreme Court that deceased was a Conductor inasmuch as he was collecting fare from the passengers. In that context the Supreme Court observed as under: 13. The appellants next, submission was that the concerned employee was a "conductor. It is doubtful whether a "Khalasi" and a conductor are the same. But assuming this were so, there is nothing to show that the appellant had paid any additional premium to cover the risk of injury to a conductor. On the contrary, the policy shows that premium was paid for 13 passengers and 1 driver. There is no payment of premium for a conductor. 15. Consequently, although the appellants claim under the insurance policy arose under the Workmens Compensation Act, since the concerned employee was not engaged in the capacity of driver in respect of whom alone premium was paid apart from the passengers, his claim is unsustainable. 9. In the instant case from perusal of the Insurance policy which was proved before the court below and marked as Annexure-A it appears that the premium was paid for 31 passengers plus 2 persons including driver and cleaner. The relevant portion of certificate of insurance is reproduced herein below: Reg. 9. In the instant case from perusal of the Insurance policy which was proved before the court below and marked as Annexure-A it appears that the premium was paid for 31 passengers plus 2 persons including driver and cleaner. The relevant portion of certificate of insurance is reproduced herein below: Reg. Mark & No. Engine No. & Chasis No. Make Year of Manufacture Type of body C.C Maximum Licensed Carrying capacity Including driver & cleaner. Net Premium BR-14P 3864 740309 711457 Passenger vehicle 2000 Bus 25 31+2 Rs. 11,641- 10. It further appears from the record that the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation in course of hearing directed the insurance company to produce original proposal form to establish that there was no proposal to cover risk of the cleaner. The appellant insurance company filed application on 25.3.2003 before the Commissioner and sought 15 days more time for filing the proposal but the same was not filed. Even this Court on 12.7.2007 passed the following order: Heard in part. Put up for further hearing on 23 rd July, 2007. In the meantime, the Registry is directed to call for the lower court records through special messenger. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel for the appellant shall also produce before this Court the original proposal form submitted by the owner of the vehicle on the basis of which the Insurance Policy was issued. 11. Inspite of the aforesaid order, appellant failed to produce original proposal form submitted by the owner of the vehicle on the basis of which policy was issued. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it can safely be presumed that the insurance policy was issued covering risk of the cleaner. Even assuming that premium was paid covering risk of the conductor, this Court can take notice of the fact that in small mini bus generally conductors are not employed and one person employed always use to discharge the duty of cleaner and conductor. Respondents have led sufficient evidence to establish that deceased was not only discharging the duty of cleaner but also used to collect fare from the passengers and regulates exit and entry of the passengers also. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that deceased was not covered under the insurance policy. 12. Respondents have led sufficient evidence to establish that deceased was not only discharging the duty of cleaner but also used to collect fare from the passengers and regulates exit and entry of the passengers also. In that view of the matter, it cannot be held that deceased was not covered under the insurance policy. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Ranchi. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 13. I agree.