JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel representing respondent no.1 and Mr. K. Singha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the judgment and award dated 23/04/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Employees Compensation, Nagaon, Assam in NWC Case No. 103/2008, awarding a sum of Rs. 2,30,656/- together with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from the date of the accident till realization, in favour of the claimant/respondent no. 1, on account of the permanent disability suffered by him due to the motor accident. 3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 12/03/2008 at about 11-30 a.m. when the claimant had got down from the vehicle so as to collect tickets from the passengers, another vehicle bearing no. AS02 A-1312 coming towards the standing vehicle had knocked him down, as a result of which, the claimant had suffered serious injury in his body including fracture in his middle and left fibula and also severe injury in his chest which had lead to his permanent disability to the extent of 50% leading to loss of his earning capacity to the extent of 60%. The accident took place when the claimant was serving as a Ticket Collector in the TATA SPACIO vehicle bearing No. AS 02/E-0133 owned by the respondent no. 2 and at the time of the accident, the age of the claimant was 27 years. As such, the claimant had filed his claim petition seeking compensation on account of loss of earning capacity. 4. Based on the materials available on record, the learned Commissioner had passed the impugned judgment and award dated 23/04/2014. Hence, this appeal. 5. The instant appeal was admitted to formal hearing by framing the following question of law :- “Whether in absence of any statutory requirement under the policy of insurance of a motor vehicle or contractual obligation under the policy of insurance in question in respect of the vehicle to cover the risk of the handyman of the public service vehicle bearing registration no. AS-02/E-0133 (Tracker Spacio), the Insurer can be held liable for compensation?” 6. AS-02/E-0133 (Tracker Spacio), the Insurer can be held liable for compensation?” 6. At the very outset, it would be relevant to mention herein that the learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that there is no dispute in this appeal as regard the quantum of compensation or as regards any factual finding recorded by the learned Commissioner. The only question that would arise for a decision of this Court is as to whether the claimant being in service of the commercial vehicle in his capacity as a “Handyman” would come within the scope and ambit of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 7. It is to be noted herein that based on the materials available on record, the learned Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding of fact that the accident took place not only during the course of employment of the claimant but the same also arose out of his employment in the aforesaid passenger vehicle. That apart, the learned Commissioner has also recorded a finding that the salary of the respondent no.1 on the date of the accident was Rs. 3000/- per month and his age was 27 years. 8. By referring to the evidence available on record, Mr. Goswami submits that during the cross examination, the claimant has admitted that he was working as a handyman in the vehicle. Referring to the definition of “Conductor” given in Section 2(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Mr. Goswami submits that even though the claimant has claimed himself to have been collecting tickets from the passenger, yet, he would not come within the definition of “Conductor” as per the Act of 1988 since the claimant did not hold a valid license issued by the Transport Authority. Mr. Goswami further submits that as per Section 147(1) of the Act of 1988, the policy cover would extend only to those categories of employees mentioned in the said provision and considering the fact that no additional premium in this case has been paid for any other class of persons or employees, the benefit under the policy cannot be extended to the claimant who was engaged as a handyman since a handyman is not one of the category of employees named in the esaid proviso. Under the circumstances, Mr. Goswami has prayed for setting aside the impugned award. 9. Mr. Under the circumstances, Mr. Goswami has prayed for setting aside the impugned award. 9. Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel representing respondent no.1/claimant on the other hand contends that it is the pleaded case of the respondent no.1 that he was engaged in the vehicle as a “Ticket Collector” and the said fact has also been brought on record by the CW-1 by adducing cogent evidence. However, submits Mr. Ghosh, the said testimony of the CW-1/claimant has not been challenged during the cross examination. Mr. Ghosh, therefore, submits that the fact that the respondent no. 1 was working as a Ticket Collector was established by bringing evidence on record and hence, he would come within the ambit of the proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act of 1988. 10. Mr. K. Singha, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has also supported the arguments advanced by Mr. Ghosh to contend that the respondent no.1 was engaged as a Ticket Collector in the vehicle and, therefore, he would be entitled to the benefit under the policy by operation of Section 147 of the Act of 1988. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the core question that would arise for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether there was sufficient evidence available on record for the learned Commissioner to hold that the claimant/respondent no. 1 was employed in his capacity as one of the category of employees included in Section 147 of the Act of 1988. 12. As mentioned above, the respondent no. 1 was employed in the TATA SPECIO vehicle owned by the respondent no.2. Evidence available on record goes to show that the vehicle was being operated on commercial basis and save and except the claimant/respondent no. 1, the driver of the vehicle was the only other employee of the respondent no. 2 present in the vehicle. If his vehicle was used on commercial basis and save and except the Driver of the vehicle, the claimant was the only other employee present in the vehicle, it is obvious that the basic role of the claimant/respondent no. 1 was that of a Ticket Collector. Accordingly, the claimant has taken a pleaded stand that at the time of the accident he was collecting tickets from the passengers getting down from the vehicle. 13. 1 was that of a Ticket Collector. Accordingly, the claimant has taken a pleaded stand that at the time of the accident he was collecting tickets from the passengers getting down from the vehicle. 13. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 would be relevant for the purpose of this case and, therefore, the same is reproduced herein below :- “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) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in subsection (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 authorised 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 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. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons.” 14. A bare perusal of the proviso (ii)(b) of Section 147(1) of the M. V. Act, 1988 would go to show that the said provision would include a “Conductor” of the vehicle or a person “examining the tickets” in its fold. Since the claimant was the Ticket Collector in the vehicle, hence, it is obvious that he would come within the purview category of employees described in proviso (i) (b) to Section 147 of the Act of 1988. In other words, since the claimant was engaged in the duty of examining/collecting tickets from the passengers, in the opinion of this Court, he would be automatically covered under Section 147(1) of the Act of 1988, even if no additional premium is paid in respect of the said policy. 15. At this stage, Mr. Goswami has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And others reported in (2003)10 SCC 664 to contend that since the petitioner was also doing the work of Handyman, hence, he would not be covered under the policy. In support of his argument, Mr. Goswami has also stated that the respondent no. 1 did not hold a valid Conductor’s License. The aforesaid argument of Mr. Goswami, I am afraid, cannot be accepted by this Court for the following reason. 16. In the case of Ramashray Singh (Supra), the claimant was working as a Khalasi (Cleaner) and there was no dispute as regards the nature of his employment. In that case it was not the claim of the claimant that he was serving either as a Driver or Conductor or Ticket Collector in the vehicle. In the case of Ramashray Singh (Supra), the employee was not a driver nor conductor nor examiner of ticket. In that case it was not the claim of the claimant that he was serving either as a Driver or Conductor or Ticket Collector in the vehicle. In the case of Ramashray Singh (Supra), the employee was not a driver nor conductor nor examiner of ticket. By interpreting sub-section (i) and (ii) of clause (b) of Section 147 (1), the Supreme Court has held that the employee would not come under the description of “any person” or “passenger” used in the sub-clause and hence, would not be entitled to the benefit under the policy. Therefore, the decision in the case of Ramashray Singh (Supra) would not be of any assistance to the appellant in the facts of the present case. 17. It is also to be noted herein that Clause (b) of Sub-Clause (i) of the proviso to Section 147(1) mentions of a person engaged in public service vehicle either as a Conductor of the Vehicle or as a Ticket Examiner in the vehicle. The aforesaid definition would go to show that persons engaged in the task of examining tickets in a public service vehicle would come within the ambit of the proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act of 1988. Section 2(5) of the Act of 1988, only defines a “Conductor” and as per Sub-Section 6 of Section 2, a “Conductor” is required to have a license, which requirement is not laid down in case of any other person including ticket examiner. In a given case, it may so happen that in a public passenger vehicle of smaller size, a particular employee may involved in discharge of multiple tasks but as long as there are relevant material on record to show that the claimant had performed the duties of one such category of employees as mentioned in the proviso to Section 147(1) of the Act of 1988, the case of the claimant must be held to be covered under Section 147 of the Act of 1988. The policy would, therefore, cover the injury of the claimant. 18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. 19. The policy would, therefore, cover the injury of the claimant. 18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. 19. Since the appellant company has already deposited the amount before the Registry of this Court, it would now be open for the claimant to approach the Registry for withdrawal of the amount by furnishing proper proof of identity. There would be no order as to costs. Send back the LCR.