ORDER : 24.04.2014 - Heard Mr. Adam Ali Khan, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 02.03.2012 passed by the learned 5th M.A.C.T., Nayagarh in M.A.C. No. 28 of 2009. The sole question raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the deceased, who was travelling in the offending vehicle as its Helper is not covered under the policy for which Insurance Company has no liability. In support of contentions raised, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Ramashray Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others; 2003 (3) TAC 3 (SC) where the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a case of "Khalasi" in a Trekker has held that in absence of any special premium, a "Khalasi" is not covered under the policy. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the complainants-respondents, on the other hand, has relied upon two decisions, i.e., 2013 ACJ 2205 (SC) and 2007 (I) OLR 637 . So far as the first decision is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with a case of the cleaner in a van has categorically held that even under an Act policy, Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The other decision of this Court while by following a Division Bench has also observed that in an Insurance Policy "third party" means any person other than the insured and insurer. Thus, a cleaner of the bus being a third party is entitled to get compensation from the Insurance Company otherwise, the Helper of a bus being a passenger is also covered under a policy of insurance. Now coming to the provisions of the M.V. Act, it is quite clear from a bare reading of Section 147 that in case of public service vehicle the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the driver, conductor or examining tickets on the vehicle. From our common knowledge, we know that the helper in a bus discharges his duty as a ticket examiner. He allows the passengers to get into the bus or to get down after examining their tickets. From our common knowledge, we know that the helper in a bus discharges his duty as a ticket examiner. He allows the passengers to get into the bus or to get down after examining their tickets. Therefore, considering the present case from any angle and following the decisions of the apex Court reported in 2013 ACJ 2205 and of this Court reported in 2007 (I) OLR 637 . It can be held that, the deceased being the Helper of the bus is squarely covered under the policy for which Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. In view of the above findings, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is devoid of any merit for which the same is dismissed. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest as directed within six weeks from today. The statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company before the Registry along with the accrued interest thereon shall be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company on producing the proof of deposit of the awarded amount before the Tribunal. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Appeal dismissed.