ORDER This appeal by New India Assurance Company Limited is against award dated 15-04-2003 in O.P.No. 817 of 2000 passed by Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein (claimants) are legal heirs of one Ayyub Khan, who was stately 25 years and was working as cleaner in lorry bearing No.MWY6300 (first lorry) and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. On 03-03-2000 when he was going on duty as cleaner from Hyderabad towards Nagpoor, first lorry dashed against another lorry bearing No.AP9U 6760 (second lorry) coming in opposite direction. Ayyub khan sustained injuries and died on the spot. Claimants instituted OP claiming Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation alleging negligence on the part of driver of first lorry. 3. Owner of first lorry filed written statement opposing OP. He alleged that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of second lorry and therefore, he is not liable for payment of compensation. He also alleged that deceased was working as a cooli earning Rs.50/- per day and therefore, Rs.4,00,000/- as claimed is exorbitant. Insurer of first lorry filed a separate written statement alleging that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of second lorry and that in the absence of driver, owner and insurer of second lorry as parties, OP is liable to be dismissed and that amount claimed by claimants is exorbitant. 4. Wife of deceased gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 besides examining one eye-witness as P.W.2. Ex.B-1 policy was marked as evidence by insurer and no oral evidence was let in. Considering evidence learned Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of first lorry. Taking income of deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month, Tribunal awarded Rs.4,48,300/- and apportioned amount among wife and children of deceased (claimants). 5. Learned counsel for appellant – insurer placed strong reliance on Ex.B-1 policy and contends that no separate/extra premium was paid to cover risk of cleaner and therefore as per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for brevity), policy of insurance is not required to cover cleaner. He placed reliance on Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2003) 10 SCC 664 = AIR 2003 SC 2877 = 2003 (6) ALT 20.3 (DNSC) 6. He placed reliance on Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2003) 10 SCC 664 = AIR 2003 SC 2877 = 2003 (6) ALT 20.3 (DNSC) 6. Section 147 of the Act contains mandate requirements to be complied with when policy is obtained/issued under chapter XI of the Act. As per proviso (i) to Section 147(1) of the Act, policy issued under chapter XI is not required to cover liability of death arising out of and in course of his employment of employee of a person Insured other than the driver and conductor of vehicle. Therefore, cleaner of first lorry is not required to be covered under policy. Section 147(2) of the Act lays down that the policy of insurance referred to in Section 147(1) of the Act shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident upto the limits mentioned therein. Therefore, if an extra premium is paid for cleaner, insurer is required to indemnify owner of vehicle against any third party risks. Ex. B-1 policy shows that though extra premium of Rs.75/- was paid to five coolies, no separate premium was paid for cleaner. Learned Tribunal lost sight of this important aspect of the matter and proceeded with an assumption that cleaner is covered. Cleaner is not covered and therefore, insurer is not liable. 7. In Ramashray Singh (supra) while referring to Section 147(1) of the Act law is stated as follows. ... Over and above the risks which are covered by this statutory provision, parties may of course enter into a contract by which the insurer agrees to cover additional f1sks. It IS not the appellant's case that apart from the policy of insurance there was any contract between the appellant and the insurance company ...... The appellant's 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. …….. The appellant's final submission was that as the policy was a comprehensive one, it would cover all risks including the death of the khalasi. The submission is unacceptable. 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. …….. The appellant's final submission was that as the policy was a comprehensive one, it would cover all risks including the death of the khalasi. The submission is unacceptable. An insurance policy only covers the person or classes of persons specified in the policy. A comprehensive policy merely means that the loss sustained by such person/persons will be payable up to the insured amount irrespective of the actual loss suffered. (See New India Insurance Co. Lid v. J.M. Jaya, 2002 (2) SCC 278 ; Colinvaux's Law of Insurance (7n, Edition) pp. 93-94)." 8. Thus unless and until extra premium is paid under contract of insurance, cleaner is not covered under policy. As held supra, no such extra premium is paid and therefore, insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. 10. As the appeal field by insurer is allowed, Cross Objections are dismissed.