JUDGMENT : In this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 the Insurance Company has challenged the Judgment and award dated 9.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner, W.C.Zone-III, Tezpur in Case No.17 of 2002 awarding compensation of Rs.1,06,257.60 and interest of Rs.33,162.64 as interest thereon along with future interest @ 9% per annum. 2. One Md. Naimuddin filed a claim petition before the W.C. Commissioner, Tezpur stating that opposite party No.1, Ashutosh Das being registered owner of a Mini Bus bearing registration No.AS-02/8677 engaged him as handyman in the said vehicle. On 14.3.2000 while the vehicle was proceeding towards Hojai from Nagaon, it met with an accident at Singrapatty at about 10.30 pm whereupon claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries on his chest, left wrist and other parts of the body. He was immediately taken to Hojai Civil Hospital and subsequently treated at Nagaon under Dr. J Sarmah. Kampur P.S. Case No.16 of 2000 was registered in connection with the accident. The claimant stated that the driver had a valid driving license as on the date of accident. According to him, he got Rs.2000/- per month towards salary and Rs.50/- towards daily allowance. It was also disclosed that the vehicle was duly insured under the National Insurance Company under Nagaon Branch. He claimed Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. 3. The opposite party No.1 owner of the vehicle appeared and submitted written statement and contested the same. Opposite party No. 1 also claimed that vehicle was duly insured under the opposite party No.2, insurance company and so liability if there by any shall be of the opposite party No. 2 only. 4. Opposite party No.2 by filing written statement denied all responsibility and liabilities and also raised objection in regard to accident and injury involved. On the basis of the pleadings put forward by the parties, the W.C. Commissioner framed the following five issues and put the parties to prove their respective cases: (i) Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim? (ii) Is there any cause of action for the claim petition? (iii) Whether the claim petition is maintainable in the present form? (iv) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation as claimed by the claimant petitioner? 5. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. J Sarmah as PW-2. Both the witnesses were duly cross examined by the insurance company. (iii) Whether the claim petition is maintainable in the present form? (iv) Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation as claimed by the claimant petitioner? 5. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and Dr. J Sarmah as PW-2. Both the witnesses were duly cross examined by the insurance company. Claimant proved accident information report as Exhibit-1, Medical Certificate as Exhibit-15, Prescription as Exhibit 2 to 14 and x-ray plates as material exhibits to substantiate his claim. Deciding all the issues in favour of the claimant, the learned tribunal arrived at the finding that the workman was drawing Rs.4,500/- per month from the owner towards salary and daily allowance and he was 22 years of age at the relevant time. Monthly salary of Rs.2000/- was taken for the purpose of computing the compensation. Relying on the opinion of the qualified medical practitioner, the learned trial court held that the loss of earning capacity of the workman was to the extent of 40% and accordingly, compensation was assessed as follows: 40% x 1200 x 221.57 = Rs.1,06,257.60 Alongwith this amount interest @ 9% per annum was also allowed. Thus, another sum of Rs.33, 162.64 was granted in addition to Rs.1,06,257.60 The aforesaid amount was directed to be paid within 30 days and the insurance company deposited the whole amount with the W.C. Commissioner while it preferred appeal before this court challenging its liability. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this court framed the following substantial question of law:- “Whether handyman of a vehicle is protected under the insurance cover? 7. I have heard Mr. A Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the opposite party/respondent. 8. Mr. A Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that while the driver and conductor of a vehicle are statutorily covered under Section 147 of the M.V. Act, 1988 there is no such provision for the handyman and so the benefit of insurance covered cannot be extended to a handyman. He has placed reliance in the case of Ramashray Singh –vs- New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 664 . 9. He has placed reliance in the case of Ramashray Singh –vs- New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 664 . 9. In the case of Ramashray Singh (supra) , although Supreme court found that over and above the risks which are covered by statutory provision of Section 147, parties are at liberty to enter into a contract by which the insurer may agree to cover additional risk . In that case by considering the policy condition, Hon’ble Supreme Court found that Kalashi was not covered under the said policy. What is discernible from the judgment of Ramashray Singh(supra) is this that a policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of death or injury of an employee or a person insured by a policy who is engaged in driving the vehicle or engaged as conductor. But for any other person engaged by insured, he is at liberty to enter into contract with the insurer for the purpose and the insurer may agree to cover such additional risk on receipt of additional premium. This means that if in a given case, the insured makes payment for any additional risk like handyman in that case, handyman will be covered by insurance cover. 10. Having gone through the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no doubt that handyman of a vehicle may be protected under the insurance cover if the insured makes payment of premium to the insurer for that and insures agreed to it. So in case, question of liability of the insurance company would arise the policy document will be essential document to find out as to whether any additional payment has been made by insured to insuer for covering a particular employee. Herein in this case, the insurance company having denied liability to make payment of compensation has not produced the policy document before the Tribunal or before this court. I have also perused the lower court record. The policy document is not found. Under such circumstances, there is no material to come to hold that the insured did not make payment of additional premium and that the insurer did not agree to cover the risk of handyman. The insurance company not having led any evidence to that effect either by examining its employee or by producing record, the sole substantial question of law is accordingly decided against appellant. The insurance company not having led any evidence to that effect either by examining its employee or by producing record, the sole substantial question of law is accordingly decided against appellant. In the absence of policy document, it cannot be held that handyman is not protected under the insurance cover. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. 12. Stay order passed earlier stands automatically vacated. 13. Send down the records.