ORDER Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents inspite of service of notice. This appeal has been filed by, the owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment/award dated 06.08.2010, passed by the IIIrd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; Rourkela; awarding an amount of Rs. 2,95,100/- as compensation and directing the Insurance Company-respondent No. 1 to first pay the said amount to the claimants-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and thereafter take steps for realization of the same from the owner-appellant. The brief facts of the case is that Sajit @ Ajit Kachhua; who was working as a 'Khalasi' in the vehicle (Tipper) No. OR-14/4951 met with an accident on 10.05.2007 at about 5.30 A.M. at Sankha bridge near Gopapali, when the vehicle loaded with coal capsized inside the premises of Jaybalaji Jyoti Steel Factory, as a result of which he died. His legal heirs filed application before the IIIrd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rourkela, for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘M.V. Act’ for short). The Insurance Company-respondent No. 1 took the plea before the learned Tribunal that the Khalasi of the offending vehicle is not insured, as no extra premium has been paid in respect of such Khalasi and therefore the insurance policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle does not cover the liability of the Khalasi. Learned Tribunal, taking into consideration, the monthly wages of the deceased Khalasi on the basis of the minimum wages prevalent at that point of time and applying the multiplier of 17, has calculated the compensation amount payable and has accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,95,100/- as compensation. As regard the liability to pay the same, learned Tribunal has proceeded to hold that as the deceased was a Khalasi in the offending vehicle, he is not covered under the insurance policy issued in respect of the said vehicle and therefore the Insurance Company has no liability to pay the compensation amount. However, the learned Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amount to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in due process of law. The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal is extracted below: “........ However, the learned Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amount to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in due process of law. The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal is extracted below: “........ After taking note of the dictums laid down in the above referred cases, the case of Ramashray Singh is befitting to the facts and circumstances of this case and it can be said that the Khalasi is not covered under the length and breadth of the Insurance policy issued by O.P. No. 2. That only relates to the driver and the-said driver has already availed that benefit and no more benefit can be extended to the present Khalasi. So, the entire compensation amount is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company has no liability in this connection. But for the time being, the amount as fixed above is to be paid by the Insurance Company having the right of recovery of the same from the owner in due process of law.” Learned counsel for the owner-appellant submits that as the vehicle is a ‘Tipper’, which is a 'goods carriage' and the deceased. was travelling in the, vehicle as a Khalasi, for loading and unloading of goods, he is covered under the policy of insurance as per the provisions of Section 147(1)(b) of the M.V. Act and therefore no extra premium is required to be paid in respect of such a Khalasi. was travelling in the, vehicle as a Khalasi, for loading and unloading of goods, he is covered under the policy of insurance as per the provisions of Section 147(1)(b) of the M.V. Act and therefore no extra premium is required to be paid in respect of such a Khalasi. "Section 147 : Requirements of policies and limits of liability - (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy, which- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2) - (i) against any liability, which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or, bodily injury to any, person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required - (i) to cover-liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee – (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability.” On a perusal of the impugned award, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has relied upon a decision of the apex Court tin the case of Ramashray Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2003 (3) T.A.C. 3 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that as the deceased therein was engaged as a Khalasi in the offending vehicle, which was a public service, vehicle, he is not covered under the insurance policy issued in respect of the said vehicle; which only covers the liability of the employee engaged as a driver or conductor of the vehicle or ticket examiner. In the said Ramashray Singh case, the deceased was working as a Khalasi in a 'public service vehicle' and the certificate of insurance issued in respect of the said vehicle disclosed the seating capacity of the vehicle to be "13+1". As the vehicle was a 'public service vehicle', authorized to carry passengers for hire or reward, the Hon'ble Court while referring to the proviso to Section 147(1)b) of the M.V. Act, has come to hold that a “Khalasi” or “Cleaner” engaged in a 'public service vehicle' is not covered by the insurance' policy and that such policy only covers the liability of a driver and conductor or examiner of tickets of the vehicle. The aforesaid decision of the apex Court in Ramashray Singh case has no application to the facts of the present case in as much as, the vehicle here is a 'goods carriage' and the deceased was 'travelling as a Khalasi, or Coolie for loading and unloading of the goods. Such Khalasi or Coolie of a 'goods carriage' stands automatically covered under the insurance policy issued in respect of such a vehicle, as per the proviso to Section 147(1)(b) of the M.V. Act, which provides that a policy shall not be required to cover the liability in respect of death of or bodily injury to any such employee, being carried in a 'goods carriage'. On a perusal of the insurance policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle it is seen that the same is a Goods Carriage Package Policy, wherein the carrying capacity of the vehicle has been shown to be "3". Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased Khalasi, who was being carried in the vehicle for loading and unloading of goods, was not covered under the insurance policy issued in respect of the said vehicle or that any additional premium was required to be paid in respect of such a Khalasi. Therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased Khalasi, who was being carried in the vehicle for loading and unloading of goods, was not covered under the insurance policy issued in respect of the said vehicle or that any additional premium was required to be paid in respect of such a Khalasi. As the vehicle in question is a 'goods carriage' and the deceased was being carried as a Khalasi, within the permissible seating or carrying capacity specified in the policy, he is covered under the insurance policy issued in respect of the said vehicle. In view of the above, the order of the learned Tribunal holding the owner liable to pay the compensation amount and directing the Insurance Company to first pay the awarded compensation amount to the claimants, with the right to recover the same from the owner-appellant is set aside. The Insurance Company is held liable to pay the awarded compensation amount to the legal heirs of the deceased Khalasi. MACA is allowed. MACA allowed.