ORDER Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :- 1. This is claimants' appeal against the order/award dated 04-04-2000, passed by the Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and District Judge, Raipur in Motor Claim Case No.40/1998. 2. The claimants, unfortunate widow and minor children of deceased K.D. Dinkar, claimed compensation of Rs. 13,39,000/- by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act") for his death in the motor accident on 01-12-1997, when the Maruti Van bearing registration No. M.P. 26-F /2927 in which he was travelling met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, resulting in his death. The claimants further pleaded that deceased - K.D. Dinkar was earning Rs.9,600/- per month as Development Officer in 'Life Insurance Corporation of India' . 3. The Tribunal on the evidence led before it held that deceased - K.D. Dinkar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01-12-1997; it was not established that the Maruti Van, at the time of the accident, was being driven by its driver and in all probability the deceased himself was driving the Maruti Van; as no extra-premium was paid by the deceased, who was the owner of the Maruti Van for covering his risk, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 4. The Tribunal on the above findings dismissed the Claim Petition. 5. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the extra-premium of Rs.200/- paid by the deceased - insured was to cover the risk under IMT -5 and in fact this amount was paid for covering the risk under 1MT -4. 6. Shri RB. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted that extra-premium paid by the insured was for covering the risk of four persons other than the owner and the paid driver@Rs.50/- per person. 7. Admittedly, deceased - K.D Dinkar, was the owner of the Maruti Van bearing registration No. M.P. 26-F /2927. It is also not in dispute that on the date of the accident, the said Maruti Van overturned due to rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of deceased - K.D. Dinkar on the spot itself. 7. Admittedly, deceased - K.D Dinkar, was the owner of the Maruti Van bearing registration No. M.P. 26-F /2927. It is also not in dispute that on the date of the accident, the said Maruti Van overturned due to rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of deceased - K.D. Dinkar on the spot itself. A bare perusal of the Insurance filed before the Tribunal reveals that extra-premium of Rs.2001- was paid for covering the risk of four unnamed persons@Rs.501-per person. At the bottom of the policy there is further mention that the above policy is subject to Endorsement Nos. 5, 10,22,24,65 & 71. In the policy no extra premium has been shown to have been paid corresponding to the entry relating to IMT-4. In the endorsement at the bottom of the policy also there is no mention of IMT -4. We, therefore, have no manner of doubt that the premium of Rs.2001was paid for covering the risk under IMT -5 only and not under IMT -4, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the extra-premium paid by the deceased insured was for covering the risk of four persons other than the owner and the paid driver under IMT-5. 8. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants fairly and frankly conceded that the risk of deceased - K.D. Dinkar, who was the owner of the Maruti Van, was not covered under IMT-5. 9. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appellants' Claim Petition as they were not entitled to get any compensation either from the driver of the Maruti Van or its insurer. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.