ORDER I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated 08.05.2009 passed by the II Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Korba (C.G) in Claim Case No. 32/2007 on the ground that the liability has been fastened on the Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimant are that on 03.06.2006 at about 4.30.p.m., the injured Harmit Singh was bringing the coal by Truck bearing Regn. No. C.G. 12-C/1876. The said Track had to reach Balco Plant, Korba. On the way near Sirda Bridge, the said vehicle which was being driven by Respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner turned turtle, as a result of which, the right hand shoulder of the Respondent No. 1 has been fractured and he also sustained serious injuries on the left hand and wrist. The vein of the left hand has been cut. His left hand has been shortened comparing to the right hand. All the fingers of the left hand are not functioning. After the accident, he was immediately admitted to B.D.M. Hospital, Champa where he was primarily treated. Thereafter, he was admitted in a private hospital of Dr. Surjit Singh where an operation was conducted on his left hand and a rod was inserted. Again the rod was removed by Dr. Chandani and a plate was fixed and graphiting was also done by removing some bone from his waist. Thus, the claimant had undergone surgeries many times and thus he was put to pain and suffering. It is alleged that due to the said accident, he was also put to permanent disability to the extent of 48%. At the time of accident, he was aged about 34 years and was working in a private Company earning Rs. 6000/- per month. He has filed claim application to the tune of Rs. 11,95,000/- on various heads. 3. The learned claims Tribunal held that the offending vehicle which belonged to Respondent No. 3 has met with an accident in which Respondent No. 1 has sustained grievous injuries and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2. It has further held that it is not proved that there are breach of policy conditions regarding driving license and permit. 4. It has further held that it is not proved that there are breach of policy conditions regarding driving license and permit. 4. In the statement of the injured claimant, he stated that he was a supervisor in Uinesh Gupta & Electricals and on the instructions of his employer, he had gone to Raigarh from Korba in the offending vehicle for bringing coal to the Balco Plant. In his cross examination, he has further stated that his employer was not a coal contactor. He has again stated that exactly he do not know as to whether or not his employer was dealing in coal contracts. He has further admitted that he got loaded the coal in the offending Truck in village Barod, Distt. Raigarh. He has purchased the coal from Barod coal washer and got a receipt. 5. We have perused the insurance Policy. The risk of the occupant is not covered under the policy and only the risk of two employees is covered. Undoubtedly, the injured claimant was not an employee in the offending vehicle, therefore, the insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 6. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the part of the impugned award by which the Insurance Company has been held liable to pay the amount of compensation. However we have not considered the quantum as there is no need to consider the same and the appeal has been filed only on the ground of fastening liability on the insurance Company. However, the claimant may claim the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. If the amount has already been deposited, the same shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the Insurance Company, but if the same has been disbursed to the claimant it will be open for the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.