JUDGMENT : R.P.DHOLARIA, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Vishnubhai Ishwarbhai Patel-original defendant no.1 against the judgment and award dated 07/10/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Mehsana in MACP No.841 of 2006. 2. By way of present appeal, the appellant who is registered owner of truck bearing GJ-3-V-7612, has, inter alia, contended that though the original claimant was driver upon the aforesaid truck as the employee for loading and unloading concrete and met with an accident and inspite of his coverage was already there in the policy, the learned Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company holding that said claimant was driver upon the truck as unauthorized passenger and thereby committed manifest error therein, therefore, he has urged to fasten the liability upon the Insurance Company in order to indemnify the claimant as such. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 23/08/2006, at about 11:00 hours, the applicant, original defendant no.2 and one Imranbhai were going to Panchot from Mehsana in a truck bearing registration no.GJ-03-V-7612 owned by opponent no.1 to load concrete and when said truck reached near Bhimnath Petrol Pump, suddenly driver applied brake, as a result of which the applicant and Imranbhai fell down from the truck and the applicant received serious injuries. He was immediately brought to Civil Hospital, Mehsana and was admitted as indoor patient. He was 25 years old and was hale and hearty and had no vices at the time of accident. He was a labourer in a truck and earning Rs.100/- per day at the time of accident. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the applicant to get compensation and vide impugned judgment and award, compensation of Rs.74,040/- was awarded against which present appeal is filed by present appellant. 4. Heard Mr. Vivek Mapara, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Kamlesh Kotai, learned advocate for the original claimant and Mr. R. G. Dwivedi, learned advocate for the Insurance Company. 5. On going through the memo of appeal, it appears that only short question arise for determination is as to whether the insured claimant was traveling upon the aforesaid offending truck as unauthorized passenger or an employee engaged for loading and unloading the goods upon the aforesaid offending truck. 6. R. G. Dwivedi, learned advocate for the Insurance Company. 5. On going through the memo of appeal, it appears that only short question arise for determination is as to whether the insured claimant was traveling upon the aforesaid offending truck as unauthorized passenger or an employee engaged for loading and unloading the goods upon the aforesaid offending truck. 6. In order to appreciate the contention, this Court has gone through the impugned judgment at Exh.41 where more particularly in para-11, the claimant has clearly stated that he was traveling upon the aforesaid truck belonging to Vishnubhai as labourer for loading and unloading concrete and said Vishnubhai used to pay Rs.100/- per day as labour charges. 7. In order to appreciate the aforesaid factual scenario, the claimant has been examined at Exh.23 wherein he has clearly and categorically stated that on 23/08/2006 at about 11:00, he was engaged by Vishnubhai for loading and unloading concrete and he was traveling upon truck bearing registration no.GJ-03-V-7612 and while he was traveling as labourer upon the truck and when the truck was proceeding within the vicinity of Bhimnath Petrol Pump upon Radhanpur road met with an accident and he sustained injury. He has been cross examined by learned advocate for the insurance company before the learned Tribunal wherein also it has been established that he was engaged in the aforesaid truck as labourer in order to load and unload concrete. This fact is not challenged by the learned advocate for the Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal. However, the only suggestion was put forth that he has not produced any such documentary evidence. Before the learned Tribunal vide Exh.25, FIR which came to be lodged by the very claimant soon after the accident was produced which also clearly discloses that on the day of incident, Vishnubhai rented him as well as one Sindhi Imranbhai for loading and unloading concrete and in that capacity while he was traveling upon the truck and while the truck was passing within the vicinity of Bhimnath petrol pump, at that time due to intervention of jeep, driver of truck suddenly applied brake and due to which the accident took place. 8. 8. On going through the impugned judgment, more particularly para-10 of the judgment, it is clearly emerging out that the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in arriving at the finding that the insured was traveling upon the truck as gratuitous passenger. However, as narrated above, the evidence on record is clearly indicative of the fact that the insured was employee of the owner of the truck Vishnubhai and he was traveling upon the truck as loading and unloading labourer upon it. Consequently, therefore, his status is established as labourer upon the truck. 9. Now the question arises whether by virtue of terms and conditions of policy, risk of labourer upon the truck is covered or not. To appreciate said contention, policy at Exh.39 clearly discloses that the Insurance Company has recovered premium of Rs.150/- covering the risk of legal liability employee-driver. The policy is package policy, more particularly endorsement IMT-39 which is relevant and the same reads as under: “Endorsement IMT-39 is to be used. 10. (b) Legal liability to paid driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of the insured passenger carrying vehicle (including taxis and motorized three/two wheelers ratable under the commercial vehicles tariff). Liability to any paid driver or conductor or cleaner, as applicable, employed in operation of the insured vehicle may be covered on payment of Additional Premium @ Rs.25/- per employee, the premium being chargeable on the total number of such employees registered to be carried in the vehicle. The Additional Premium of Rs.25/- per employee is net irrespective of any period of insurance not exceeding 12 months.” 11. In view of aforesaid nature of contract, the insurer has already recovered premium for risk of six employees of the aforesaid truck and indisputably in all five persons were traveling in the truck and they are within the coverage limit. In consequence thereof, the Insurance Company is duty bound to indemnify to the insured as such. 12. For the reasons recorded as above, present appeal succeeds. Present appeal is allowed and judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award including the Insurance Company. 13. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. 12. For the reasons recorded as above, present appeal succeeds. Present appeal is allowed and judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award including the Insurance Company. 13. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount along with interest and cost within a period of two months from receipt of this order and on being deposition of such amount, the amount deposited by the appellant be refunded as per law and the learned Tribunal shall disburse the same as per the terms of the contract or at its discretion to the claimants after due verification. Record and proceedings, if any received, the same shall be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal immediately. 14. As the First Appeal is disposed of, no order is required to be passed in Civil Application No.12633 of 2014 and the same also stands disposed of. Appeal allowed.