Judgment : Aggrieved over order dated 16-3-2006 passed in W.C. No.34 of 2005 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-IV, Hyderabad, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The deceased, by name, P. Swamy was employed by Opposite Party No.1 as driller/Operator on his bore-well rig lorry bearing No.AP 29-7119 on payment of monthly wages of Rs.5,000/-. It was averred in the claim petition that on 8-7-2005 while the decreased was drilling a bore well in the agricultural fields of one of one Sri Veerabhdrudu near Sri Anjaneyaswamy temple on Gajulapalli-Giddalur road, at about 1.00 a.m. the bore well rod carrier was detached and accidentally fell on the head of the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nandyal and from there, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool for treatment, wherein, while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries at about 7.00 a.m. on 8-7-2005. A case in Crime No.69 of 2005 was registered on the file of the Police Station, Mahanandi. It was averred that the deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and died in the course of employment of OP.1 as driller/Operator. It was further averred that the said rig lorry was insured with Opposite Party 2. Hence, the applicants, being the legal heirs/dependants of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- 3. Before the Tribunal, OP.1-owner of the rig lorry remained ex parte, OP.2-Insurance Company filed counter, denying the averments made in the occurrence and narration of the accident on 8-7-2005, and, death of the deceased in Government Hospital, Kurnool due to sustaining injuries, OP.2 stated that the applicants are to put to strict proof that the deceased was aged 25 years, drawing Rs.5,000/-per month as driller and that OP.1 had taken the policy by paying required premium to cover the risk of the deceased. OP.2 also filed additional counter stating that as per the copy of the policy, it covers liability to a third party and the driver of the vehicle only, and, no additional premium covering the employees who were engaged by OP.1 was paid and, as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation. OP.2 also filed additional counter stating that as per the copy of the policy, it covers liability to a third party and the driver of the vehicle only, and, no additional premium covering the employees who were engaged by OP.1 was paid and, as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation. It was further stated that as per the contents of FIR, while the deceased was drigging the bore well, accidentally some of the rods fell on the head of the deceased, due to which we he died, and, there is no accident at all due to the involvement of the said vehicle. It was mainly stated that since the owner of the rig lorry had not taken the policy covering the risk of the employees on the said vehicle, except the driver, by paying additional premium as prescribed, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as per Section 64 VB of General Insurance Act and Section 147 of the MV Act. It was lastly stated that the compensation claimed in any event, was exorbitant and on higher side. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for settlement. 1. Whether the deceased late Sri P. Swamy met with an accident on 8-7-2005 while he was on duty as driller/operator on the bore well rig lorry bearing No.AP 29.7119 owned by OP. No.1 sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment? 2. If yes, who are liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased? And 3. What is the amount of compensation entitled by the dependants of the deceased? 5. In the order to prove the claim, on behalf of the claimants/applicants, A.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to R-3 were marked. 6. On a elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available the record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased workman died accidentally by hit of a rod carrier during the course of his employment as driller/operator under the 1st Opposite Party and therefore, the dependants of the deceased are entitled to receive the compensation subject to their eligibility. On a elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available the record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the deceased workman died accidentally by hit of a rod carrier during the course of his employment as driller/operator under the 1st Opposite Party and therefore, the dependants of the deceased are entitled to receive the compensation subject to their eligibility. Then proceeding to assess the compensation, the learned Assistant Commissioner dealt with various provisions of the WC Act and MV Act and following the decisions of the Apex Court and other High Courts, awarded compensation of Rs.4,19,124/-, holding that Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realization. 7. Aggrieved over the said order, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that inasmuch as insurance policy issued in respect of the bore well rig lorry bearing No.AP 29.7119 belonging to OP.1 covers the risk of third parties and driver only and not the employees/workers engaged on the said lorry by OP.1 it, is not liable to pay any compensation. It is contended that since the deceased was not engaged in the capacity of the driver and the policy covers the risk of certain class of persons specified in the policy, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable in directing to pay compensation jointly and severally. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd (1) (2001 DT (SC) 632), National Insurance Company Limited v. Prembhal Patel (2) (2005 (4) ALT 44 (SC) = 2005) ACJ 1323). Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Lodya Shankar (3) ( 2004 (3) ALD 400 ), the learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the policy issued in respect of the rig vehicle covers only the driver and third parties and inasmuch as the deceased was not covered by the policy, as per Section 147 of the MV Act, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation for the injuries or death caused to persons other than the driver and third parties traveling in the vehicle. 9. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents would contend that as per Notification S.O. 436 (E), dated 12-6-1999 issued by the Government of India, the rig mounted bore well is a goods carriage and as per Rule 252 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, seven employees including the driver are permitted to travel in the goods vehicle and therefore, as the deceased was performing his duties as an employee at the time of the accident, he was an employee within the permissible employees in a goods vehicle. He would further contend that the deceased who died while performing duties as an employee of OP.1 at the time of accident was covered under the policy for unlimited liability since the insured had paid additional premium of Rs.175/- as against the premium to be collected Rs.25/-. It is contended that time and again, the Supreme Court held that as per Section 147 (1) of the MV Act, the Insurer is statutorily liable for the payment of compensation arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 to the employees of the insured, and therefore the insured need not pay any additional premium for the statutory liability of insurer to his employees carried in a goods vehicle. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Prembhai Patel (2 supra) and the decisions of High Courts, namely, New India Assurance Company Limited v. Voika Marrubai (4) ( 2000 ACJ 647 ), National Insurance Company v. D. Sivashankar (5) 2006 (4) ALT 526 = 2006 (4) ALD 398), National Insurance Company v. Lilu Rani Majundar (6) (2006) ACJ 808) etc. He lastly contended that the order of the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and following the decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 10. It is not in dispute that the deceased workman was employed by OP.1 as driller/operator on his bore-well rig lorry bearing No.AP29-7119 and died during the course of employment due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It is not in dispute that the above said rig vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle. A premium of Rs.25/- was to be collected to cover the risk of driver, attaching the IMT.17. It is not in dispute that the above said rig vehicle is a goods carriage vehicle. A premium of Rs.25/- was to be collected to cover the risk of driver, attaching the IMT.17. But in this case, a perusal of the insurance policy issued under Commercial Vehicles Package Policy to OP.1 would show that the third party risk also covers the employees inasmuch as said policy was issued fulfilling the requirements of MV Act, and, further Rs.200/- as against Rs.25/- was collected towards premium and said policy was issued towards premium and said policy was issued meeting the requirements as provided under Section 147 of the MV Act and specially under IMT 39 which deals with legal liability to persons employed in connection with the operation/maintenance, and/or loading/unloading of motor vehicles (Goods Vehicles). If it is so, collection of Rs.200/-, i.e. Rs.175/- extra as against prescribed premium of Rs.25/-, covers the risk of driver and other employees who are connected with operation/maintenance and/or loading and unloading. Further, in the cross-examination for the applicants, R.W.1-Assistant Manager of OP.2 accepted that it is statutory liability to insure under Section 147 of the MV Act, that the deceased was permitted to travel in the vehicle in the capacity of employee and as per Sec. 147 (4) additional premium is to be collected for additional contractual liability. Such being the position, the OP.2 cannot escape from its liability. Such being the position, the PO.2 cannot escape from its liability to indemnify the OP.1 on the ground that the deceased driller/operator of the Insured vehicle was not covered by the policy issued by them. Since, Rs.175/- has been additional paid by OP.1 towards premium, it covers the risk of not only the driver and third parties but also other workers who are connected with operation/maintenance and/or loading and unloading, and therefore, Tribunal has rightly held that both Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased workman. 11. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, there is no dispute. 12. As no other grounds are urged, I do not see any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.