Manak Mohta, J.—The instant appeal has been preferred by the non-claimant-respondent No. 2 (owner of the offending Truck No. RJB 617) against the judgment and award dt. 04.08.1993 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in MACT Claim Case No. 42/1988 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- in favour of the claimants. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that it is alleged that on 18.03.1988 at about 1.15 PM, the non-claimant No. 1 Bhodhar was driving the Truck No. RJB 617 rashly and negligently at a high speed while going from Kushalarh to Bada Dungra, on account of which, the truck turtled. The accident took place at the Chouraha of Jalampura Road. Meghji (deceased) alongwith three other labours were sitting in the truck. They were said to be travelling as labours on the truck. In accident, all the labours sustained grievous injuries on their person including Meghji, who was admitted in the hospital in serious condition but he died on 19.03.1988. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged 30 years and he was only member in his family as bread-earner. He was doing work of Hamali as well as agricultural. It was submitted that he was earning 1200/- per month. Out of which, he used to spend Rs. 200/- per month on himself and rest of the amount of income, he used to pay to the family for meeting the family expenses. Thus, after death of Meghji in accident, the family had been deprived from the said income, love and affection. the claimant No. 2 is minor daughter and she has been deprived from proper guardianship. The claimant No. 3, is the old father of the deceased, has been deprived from services of his son. In this way, claimants filed claim petition for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,70,000/-. 3. After service of notice, non-claimant No. 2 filed reply to the claim petition. In reply, all the averments made by the claimants were denied. It was further submitted that the claimants are not entitled to get compensation from the answering-non-claimants No. 2 as the said truck was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. If any liability arises, then the Insurance Company would be responsible for the same. 4. In reply, all the averments made by the claimants were denied. It was further submitted that the claimants are not entitled to get compensation from the answering-non-claimants No. 2 as the said truck was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. If any liability arises, then the Insurance Company would be responsible for the same. 4. Non-claimant No. 3 also filed reply, in which, it was stated that there was no responsibility of the Insurance Company to pay compensation as the truck was not driving rashly and negligently at high speed, but the accident occurred due to some mechanical defect. It was further stated that the deceased was traveling in the truck as a passenger. The said truck was being a Public Goods Vehicle, therefore, Insurance Company was not under an obligation to pay compensation. It was further urged that even if it is presumed that the deceased Meghji was traveling in the truck as labour then he would come within the definition of workman and in that case, the liability of the Insurance Company was limited only to the extent of statutory liability provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The amount of compensation as demanded by the claimants, is on higher side. Thus, it was prayed that the claim petition filed by the claimants may be dismissed. 5. The learned Tribunal framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and afforded opportunity to prove by evidence on behalf of the appellant PW 1 Smt. Fattu, PW 2 Dr. Ramratan Nagori, PW 3 Rayees Khan were produced, their statements were recorded and certain documents were exhibited. No evidence was produced by any of the non-claimants in defence. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal has held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver, in which, the deceased Meghji had lost his life. It was further held that at that time, deceased was workman on the truck, therefore, liability of the Insurance Company was held limited upto the extent amount payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923. Thus, the learned Tribunal has passed the Award to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim i.e. 25.04.1988, against the non-claimants but the liability of the Insurance Company was held upto the extent of Rs. Thus, the learned Tribunal has passed the Award to the tune of Rs. 1,40,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim i.e. 25.04.1988, against the non-claimants but the liability of the Insurance Company was held upto the extent of Rs. 58,235/- under the prescribed limit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Rest of the liability was placed on non-claimant No. 2 i.e. owner of the truck. 7. The non-claimant No. 2 owner of the truck, being aggrieved by the judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal, preferred the present appeal before this Court. Notice of appeal was issued to the respondents and arguments were heard. 8. Learned counsel for the non-claimant No. 2-appellant argued that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the facts that deceased Meghji was a labour (Hamal) on the truck. It has been proved by evidence and there was no rebuttal from other side and, therefore, he could not be said to be an employee under Sec. 2(i) (n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 whereas a labour (Hamal) is not covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, therefore, liability of the Insurance Company would not be to the extent, the amount of Rs. 58,235/- as payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 but it would be to its full extent. Thus the finding of the learned Tribunal in this respect is against the record and against the provisions of law as the learned Tribunal held the deceased was an employee. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case, the Insurance Company had taken over the responsibility for the payment of compensation in the case of mis-happening with any labour. For that, the Insurance Company has taken extra-premium from the appellant. Thus, it could not be said that the deceased was a passenger and the Insurance Company was not under the obligation for payment of compensation. The learned Tribunal has not considered the admitted document i.e. “Cover-Note” in its right perspective. It was submitted that the on the plea of the Insurance Company a specific issue No. 3 was framed in that respect. The learned Tribunal has not considered the admitted document i.e. “Cover-Note” in its right perspective. It was submitted that the on the plea of the Insurance Company a specific issue No. 3 was framed in that respect. Under that issue, it was to be proved by the Insurance Company whether the deceased person falls within the definition of “workman” and for that, their liability was limited upto the extent of amount payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act as per the terms of the Policy but to the utter surprise that no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company, therefore, the stand taken by them was not proved despite the learned Tribunal held that their liability was limited upto the extent of amount payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It was urged that the finding of the learned Tribunal in this respect is not sustainable and the judgment to this extent that liability of the Insurance Company was limited, liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions placed reliance on several decisions given by different High Courts in the following cases:- (1) Mandulova Satyanarayana vs. Bodireddy Lokeshwari and Ors., 1990 ACJ 971; (2) Surinder Kumar Jain vs. Sukh Dai and Ors., 1986 ACJ 848 ;; Kishori vs. Gulabkhan and Ors., 1988 ACJ 860; (3) Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr. vs. Dhanno and Ors., 1987 ACJ 759; (4) Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brajakishore Sahu and Ors., 1986 ACJ 692; (5) General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Avtar Singh and Ors, 1986 ACJ 652; (6) New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Dhanurjaya Khosla and Ors., 1988 ACJ 1065; (7) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Devidas and Ors., 1986 ACJ 312; (8) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mahadeb Kar and Ors., 1986 ACJ 362; (9) Abdul Sattar Quresh and Anr. vs. Mehboob and Ors., 1987 ACJ 448 ;; Kannekanti Varamma and Ors. vs. Puli Ramakotaiah and Ors., 1990 ACJ 539; and (10)Prafulla Chandra Choudhary vs. Pravakar Sahu and Anr., 1988 ACJ 428. On the basis of the afore-mentioned submissions, it was prayed that the appeal may be allowed and total liability for the payment of compensation amount as determined by the learned Tribunal be placed on the Insurance Company. 9. vs. Puli Ramakotaiah and Ors., 1990 ACJ 539; and (10)Prafulla Chandra Choudhary vs. Pravakar Sahu and Anr., 1988 ACJ 428. On the basis of the afore-mentioned submissions, it was prayed that the appeal may be allowed and total liability for the payment of compensation amount as determined by the learned Tribunal be placed on the Insurance Company. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company refuted the contentions and supported the finding given by the learned Tribunal. It was further submitted that it has not been established that the deceased was travelling as labour in the truck but in fact, he was sitting in the truck as passenger. In that position, the Insurance Company could not be held responsible for the payment of the compensation. In the alternatively, it was submitted that at the most, if the deceased found as a labour then he came within the definition of “workman” and awarded compensation upto the limit of amount payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act from Insurance Company. The judgment and Award should be maintained and appeal may be dismissed. He also cited the following decisions;- (1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C.M. Jaya and Ors., AIR 2002 SCW 259 ; (2) Ramashray Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., AIR 2003 SCW 3601; and (3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prembai Patel and Ors., AIR 2005 SCW 2254 . 10. I have considered the rival contentions placed by both the parties. The main question for consideration arises in this appeal is whether the Insurance Company has rightly held responsible for the payment of compensation upto the limit as prescribed under the Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1923. 11. So far as the occurrence of accident is concerned, the finding of the learned Tribunal is correct and is maintained. During the course of argument, no dispute has been raised and finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the statement of the eye-witness PW 3 Rayees Khan, who was cleaner on the Truck and was present at the time of accident. 12. Keeping in mind, the contentions raised by the parties, I have perused the cover-note Ex.A/1 admitted to be issued by the Insurance Company. In that cover note, the Company has specifically accepted extra-premium for labours, therefore, it is not a simple case where the deceased was sitting on the truck as passenger. 12. Keeping in mind, the contentions raised by the parties, I have perused the cover-note Ex.A/1 admitted to be issued by the Insurance Company. In that cover note, the Company has specifically accepted extra-premium for labours, therefore, it is not a simple case where the deceased was sitting on the truck as passenger. The Insurance Company has not able to explain his position in this respect. The learned Tribunal has also over-ruled the plea of the Insurance Company that the deceased was passenger in the Truck as the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation against the Insurance Company and no appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. Thus, the first contention of the respondent-Insurance Company is not sustainable and finding is maintained. The second contention was raised by the Insurance Company was that the deceased came within the definition of workman as defined under Sec. 2(1)(n) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act but as per the material available on record, the contention is also not having force, it is stated by PW 1 Smt. Fattu that her husband was labour (Hamal) on the truck but he was not getting regular salary from the owner of the truck. PW 3 Rayees Khan also stated that he was cleaner on the truck and deceased Meghji was labour on the truck. The truck was loaded with wheat bags and charges of labour was used to pay by the owner of the goods. He specifically stated that the labour charges are not paid by the owner of the truck. The relevant portion is quoted as under :- ßbl Vªd esa xsgwa Hkjs gqos FksA fdlh Mhyj ds xsgwa FksA Mhyj ds ?kj ij jksgfu;k xsgwa [kkyh djus FksA es?kth Vªd esa gekyh djrk FkkA gekyh ds #i;s Mhyj nsrk gS] xkM+h ekfyd ugha nsrk gSA bl Vªd esa rhu geky Fks o eSa ,d Dyhuj FkkAÞ 13. This position has not been rebutted. More-so, the burden of proving this issue on the Insurance Company that the deceased was workman on the truck but neither they have proved by evidence nor produced any documentary evidence in this respect. Thus, the plea taken by the Insurance Company has not been established. On the contrary, the authorities cited by the appellant support that the deceased could not be said to be an employee or workman and the present claim is not covered by the Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1923. Thus, the plea taken by the Insurance Company has not been established. On the contrary, the authorities cited by the appellant support that the deceased could not be said to be an employee or workman and the present claim is not covered by the Workmens’ Compensation Act, 1923. In that situation, the total liability for the payment of compensation comes on the shoulder of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company could not be saved from his legal liability. In case of New India Assurance Company Limited (supra), no extra-premium was taken by the Insurance Company except premium for Third Party Risk. In case of Ramashray Singh (supra), the policy was comprehensive in nature, the risk of passenger was not taken over. In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the death of driver was involved, therefore, claim was covered under the Workmens’ Compensation Act but this is not the position in the present case. The contentions of the respondents are having no force. The authorities cited by the respondents side do not help their contentions. On the contrary, the stand of the appellant finds support from the cases cited by them. In the above cases, except one and two in all the cases where the claimants were labours like Hamal, the responsibility of the Insurance Company was held to its full extent. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and Award dt. 04.08.1993 passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside to this extent that liability of the Insurance Company has been held upto the limit of Rs. 58,235/- and in that place, it is held that the Insurance Company is full responsible for the entire payment of compensation to the claimants. Thus, the Insurance Company would be liable jointly and severally for payment of the entire amount as compensation as determined by the learned Tribunal to the claimant. If any amount has been deposited or paid by the owner-appellant that will be recoverable in the same proceedings from the Insurance Company. Rest of the judgment and Award is confirmed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. * * * * *