JUDGMENT : K.S JHAVERI, J. 1. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers on record. 2. The present appeal is filed challenging the award dated 14.10.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special) at Porbandar in Claim Case No. 131 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal partly allowing the claim petition has awarded Rs. 1,21,000/- by way of compensation to the original claimants at 9% interest. 3. The legal heirs and representatives of deceased Deviben preferred the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation in respect of the vehicular accident which occurred on 20.12.1995. Deviben was travelling in a rickshaw bearing registration no. GTW-9444 with other co-workers and the said rickshaw was being driven by the original opponent no. 1 rashly and negligently as a result of which the rickshaw turned turtle. Deviben received injuries on her head and succumbed to the injuries during treatment. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. 4. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the deceased was travelling as a worker and not as a third party. He submitted that the interpretation of Section 147(1) is not res-integra. Looking to the language of Section 147 and the decisions of various courts including the Apex Court labourers are not covered when extra premium is not paid for that coverage. 4.1 He has drawn the attention of this court to the policy on record and submitted that in the instant case no extra premium was paid and therefore the insurance company is not liable to make any payment. In support of his submission, Mr. Nanavati has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramashray Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2877 , wherein it is held that an insurance policy only covers the person or classes of person specified in the policy. 5. From the records it is borne out that the appellant insurance company has issued the policy of delivery van i.e. goods carriage vehicle. The said policy has been produced at Ex. 30 and the same shows that there is not extra premium paid for the purpose of covering the labourers. Section 147(1) of the M.V. Act if interpreted in its true perspective lays down that the insurance company is not required to cover the risk of labourers. The said policy has been produced at Ex. 30 and the same shows that there is not extra premium paid for the purpose of covering the labourers. Section 147(1) of the M.V. Act if interpreted in its true perspective lays down that the insurance company is not required to cover the risk of labourers. 5.1 This very fact is supported by the decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant in the case of Ramashray Singh (supra). The relevant paras of the aforesaid decision is reproduced hereunder: “10. The appellant's first submission was that Shashi Bhushan Singh was a passenger. The appellant's submission that the phrases 'any person' and “any passenger” in Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-section (b) to Section 147(1) are of wide amplitude, is correct. See: New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors.. However, the proviso to the sub-section carves out an exception in respect of one class of persons and passengers, namely, employees of the insured, in other words, if the “person” or “passenger” is an employee, then the insurer is required under the statute to cover only certain employees. As sated earlier, this would still allow the insured to enter into an agreement to cover other employees, but under the proviso to Section 147(1)(b), it is clear that for the purposes of Section 146(1), a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death arising out of and in the course of any employment of the person insured arises under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and second: if the employee is engaged in driving the vehicle and if it is a public service vehicle, is engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle. If the concerned employee is neither a driver nor conductor nor examiner of tickets, the insured cannot claim that the employee would come under the description of “any person” or “passenger.” If this were permissible, then there would be no need to make special provisions for employees of the insured. The mere mention of the word “cleaner” while describing the seating capacity of the vehicle does not mean that the cleaner was therefore a passenger. The mere mention of the word “cleaner” while describing the seating capacity of the vehicle does not mean that the cleaner was therefore a passenger. Besides the claim of the deceased employee was adjudicated upon by the Workmen's Compensation Court which could have assumed jurisdiction and passed an order directing compensation only on the basis that the deceased was an employee. This order cannot now be enforced on the basis that the deceased was a passenger. 13. 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. 14. 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 upto the insured amount irrespective of the actual loss suffered.” 6. Considering the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the view that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation in respect of the deceased as she was travelling in the company's delivery van for which no extra premium was paid. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is required to be modified to that extent. 7. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. The award of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside qua liability of the insurance company-present appellant. It is made clear that the original claimants shall be entitled to recover the amount which was liable to be paid by the insurance company from the owner of the vehicle. The amount deposited, if any, by the insurance company by way of FDR shall be refunded. However, if the said amount has been withdrawn by the original claimants, it will be open to the insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Appeal partly allowed.