JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.04.2013 passed by the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. T.S. (MAC) 292/2010, wherein the learned Tribunal has fastened the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in mis-interpreting and mis-construing and also mis-reading the terms and conditions laid down in the policy. 3. Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed reliance upon the policy document to which Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insured owner did not raise any objection. That means policy document is undisputed. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset, drawing my attention to the policy document submits that the vehicle involved in the accident was a goods carrying vehicle having sitting capacity of 1+1 including the driver. It is worth to mention that the vehicle is mini three wheeler truck and the learned counsel submits that the Court should take note of “limit of liability clause” of the said policy document. The said clause is reproduced in extenso:- “Limit of liability Under Section II-1(i) in respect of any one accident: as per Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under Section II-1 in respect of any one claim or series off claims arising out of one event is Rs.6000 P.A Cover under Section III for Owner-Driver (CSI) : Rs.20000 Insured's Declared Value (IDV) For the Vehicle For Trailers Non Electrical Accessories Electrical Accessories Value of CNG LPG Kit Total Value 1,00.000 1,00,000 SCHEDULE OF PREMIUM A OWN DAMAGE B. LIABILITY BASIC OD COVER 1,812.00 ADD: BASIC TP COVER 5,580.00 BASIC OD TOTAL 1,812.00 LESS : TPPD COVER GR39A 200 OD TOTAL 1,812.00 BASIC TP TOTAL 5,380.00 LESS : NO CLAIM BONUS -GR27 453.00 ADD:PA FOR OWNER DRIVER -GR36A 100 MOTOR TOTAL OD 1,359.00 ADD;LL PAID DRIVER CONDUCTOR, CLEANER -IMT-40 25 TP TOTAL 5,505.00 TOTAL PREMIUM 6,864.00 STAMP DUTY 0.5 ADD : SERVICE TAX 707 TOTAL AMOUNT 7,571.00” 4. It is pointed out that an additional premium of Rs. 25/- to give coverage of the paid driver, conductor or cleaner/ IMT-40. It is pointed out that an additional premium of Rs. 25/- to give coverage of the paid driver, conductor or cleaner/ IMT-40. It necessitates the Court to look at clause IMT-40 which is reproduced below:- “IMT 40 Legal Liability to paid driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of Motor vehicles (For buses, taxis and motorized three/four wheelers under commercial vehicles tariff) In consideration of the payment off an additional premium, it is hereby understood and agreed that notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary the insurer shall indemnify insured against his legal liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923 and subsequent amendments of that Act prior to the date of this endorsement, the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1855 or at Common Law in respect of personal injury to any paid driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with the vehicle insured and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written Consent. The premium to be calculated and paid while taking insurance of the vehicle concurred at the rate of Rs. 25/- per driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner.” Provided always that:- (1).................................... (2).................................. (3) The insured shall keep a record of the name of each driver, cleaner, conductor or person employed in loading and/or unloading and the amount of wages salary and other earning paid to such employees and shall at all times allow the insurer to inspect such record. (4)........................................” 5. In the light of the said policy document (Exbt-B) the learned counsel for the appellant has candidly submitted that the claimant in his examination-in-chief has clearly stated that he was a daily labourer at CBI Brick Kiln and working for loading and unloading of the bricks from one place to another place. It is also evident from the deposition of P.W.-1 that there were altogether three labourers in the vehicle in question. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel submits that the Insurance Company has adduced evidence which has drawn my attention to the paragraph -3 of the examination-in-chief of one Dulal Das holding the post of Administrative officer of the said Insurance Company which is reproduced in verbatim:- “3. That the policy was issued as goods carrying vehicle wherein the sitting capacity was 1+1 and accordingly the Insurance Company would not collect any premium for any labourer” 6. That the policy was issued as goods carrying vehicle wherein the sitting capacity was 1+1 and accordingly the Insurance Company would not collect any premium for any labourer” 6. On the basis of this material fact on record the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the policy conditions as discussed above clearly shows that the premium was only paid for the driver and either one of conductor or cleaner and none else, as such, fastening of liability upon the Insurance Company by the learned Tribunal tantamount to deviation of the contract and forbidden by law. He prays for setting aside the judgment and award and shifting the burden upon the owner-insured of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal, as according to him, there is a serious breach of policy condition. 7. Per contra, Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the owner respondent No.2, Sri. Tapash Saha, submits that the policy relating to the instant dispute is a comprehensive policy. He has drawn my attention to a policy clause “Limitation as to use” which is necessary to be reproduced for convenience: “The policy covers use only under a permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 or such a carriage falling under sub Section 3 of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988” 1. Use only for carriage of goods within the amendment of the Motor Vehicle Act. The policy does not cover 10 use for organized racing, pace-making, reliability trial or speed testing. (2) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle. (3) use for carrying passengers in the vehicles; except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of Worksmen's Compensation Act 1923” 8. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has urged this Court to read the said clause as “ the policy does not cover use for carrying passenger in the vehicle ; except employee other than the driver not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under purview of Worksmens' Compensation Act 1993”. laying much emphasis on his above contention he has strenuously argued that the employees of the vehicle are covered within the scope and ambit of the policy document( Exbt-B). laying much emphasis on his above contention he has strenuously argued that the employees of the vehicle are covered within the scope and ambit of the policy document( Exbt-B). He further submits that even if there is breach of policy condition, then, also the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. To substantiate his contention Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Namita Saha & Ors. Etc., in MAC Appeal No. 20 OF 2014. 9. For convenience, I have perused the said judgment and order dated 16.05.2017 wherein four MAC appeals were decided by a common judgment of this Court. In those appeals it appears that the common question of law weighs in respect of liability of the appellant in making the payment of compensation and held that where several claim cases are filed liability may be segregated. In these cases, only one offending vehicle was issued a road permit permitting it to carry 38+1 (passengers + driver). It was the contention of the Insurance Company that they had liability to pay compensation only to those 39 persons against whom premium was paid and they had no liability to pay compensation in favour of the other passengers who were carried in excess to the numbers mentioned in the road permit. 10. At the backdrop of that factual matrix, this Court held that the fundamental liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the highest award delivered in the first 39 awards, meaning the first 39 higher awards. It will be further liability of the appellant-insurer to make payment against those claims. The Court further held that if the awards cross 39, the initial liability would be of the Insurance Company to pay the same but at the same time they will be entitled to recover the said amount from the owner-respondent by a certificate proceeding under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 11. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has tried to convince this Court that the decision of this Court in MAC Appeal No. 20 of 2014 and ors. has a direct bearing on the case in hand because in those cases this Court had made the Insurance Company liable to make payment of compensation to the passengers who were within the coverage of the road permit. That means, Mr. has a direct bearing on the case in hand because in those cases this Court had made the Insurance Company liable to make payment of compensation to the passengers who were within the coverage of the road permit. That means, Mr. Lodh has intended to relate the claimant-respondent No.1 as a passenger of the said offending vehicle, mini truck (three wheeler). 12. I find no force in the submission of Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellant, the reasons are:- (i) The claimant-respondent No.1 has himself admitted in his examination-in-chief before the Tribunal that he is the labourer of the CBI Brick Kiln Industry and was involved in loading and unloading of bricks from one place to another. (ii) In IMT-40 in the legal liability clause it is clearly stated that the policy is only made for two either paid driver and /or conductor and/or cleaner whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with the vehicle insured and for that the premium to be paid for calculating @ Rs.25/- per driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner i.e. the insured has only paid premium of Rs. 25/- for the driver of the vehicle and for any one, it may either be the conductor or cleaner. (underlined for emphasis) (iii) Clause 3 of the proviso of IMT 40 further fortifies that the insured shall keep a record of the name of each driver, cleaner, conductor or persons employed in loading and or unloading...................................................... 13. Apart from the driver, he may be cleaner or conductor or persons employed by the insured in loading and unloading only. Thus, according to me, this clause has further clarified that even if insured employs any person for loading and/or un-loading, the said person also must be the employee of the insured and not by any other organization and the concerned person must be one, apart from the driver. 14. I reiterate that it is evident in the record that the claimant -respondent 1 is not an employee of the insured, rather he is the employee of a Brick Kiln Industry. As such, the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Lodh for the owner-respondent No-2 that the claimant-respondent No.1 comes within the scope and purview of the exception clause of “limitation as to use” as afore-sated according to me, deserves no merit. 15. Further, premium is the consideration of a contract. As such, the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Lodh for the owner-respondent No-2 that the claimant-respondent No.1 comes within the scope and purview of the exception clause of “limitation as to use” as afore-sated according to me, deserves no merit. 15. Further, premium is the consideration of a contract. In this case, premium of Rs.25/- has been paid by the insured-owner taking coverage for driver and apart from him it is for either the conductor or cleaner or any employee employed by the insured. 16. In the case in hand, the appellant-Insurance Company is very specific in their legal liability clause that it is limited to driver and apart from him it may be either conductor or cleaner or employee but whoever he may be, it must be 1+1. The Insurance-Company in their condition has clearly stated that no extra-premium was taken for employee of other organization. The insured owner also could not substantiate that he had paid any premium which would give the coverage to the employees of other organization. 17. The general rules of interpretation of any clause or any contract is that the Court must first go to the literary meaning of the said clause or any provisions of law. The only scope of interpretation left upon the Court if any of the provisions of law or any clause of the contract suffers from any ambiguity, then, it empowers the Court to interpret the said clause or provisions of law in its proper perspective to uphold the object of enacting of the said provisions of law or inserting any of the clauses of the contract. 18. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Hanumanagouda Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and ors. reported in (2014) 9SCC 341. I have gone through this decision and I find that their lordships did not find any distinction between the interpretation 'persons employed in connection with the operation' and 'persons employed in connection with the loading/unloading of motor vehicle'. In that case, the premium was paid for covering the risk of the persons employed in connection with the operation of loading and unloading of the goods. 19. In that case, the premium was paid for covering the risk of the persons employed in connection with the operation of loading and unloading of the goods. 19. The Apex Court in the said case has relied on the clause of IMT 17 of the policy which reads as follows:- “Add: for LL to persons employed in connection with the operation and/or loading/unloading of motor vehicle IMT17.” 20. The Apex Court has observed that the deceased was accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery of goods. As such, the deceased was covered by the expression 'employed in connection with the operation of Motor vehicle' and the operation of the aforesaid clause has wrongly been restricted and limited only to persons employed in connection with the loading/unloading of the motor vehicle. 21. There is no dispute in the bar in regard to afore-stated proposition of the Apex Court. In the present case in hand, it is not the case of the owner-insured that they relied upon IMT-17 and paid premium for the persons employed in connection with the operation of the motor vehicle at the behest of other organization and hence, according to me, the case before the Apex Court is quite distinguishable to the facts of the present appeal. 22. The final submission of the learned counsel of the respondent-owner is that as the policy was comprehensive one, it would cover all risks including the death or injury of any person who may not even the labourer or employee of the insured. The submission, according to me, is unacceptable. An insurance policy only covers the person or classes of persons specified in the policy as well as schedule therein. A comprehensive policy merely mean that the loss sustained by such person/persons will be payable upto the insured amount irrespective of the actual loss suffered. I have come to this logical conclusion being fortified by an observation found in Collinvaux's : Law of Insurance(7th Edition) P. 93-94. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has placed a decision of the Apex Court in MS Middle High School Vs. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. ltd. in case number Special leave to appeal (C) No(s).31406/2017) dated 22.11.2017 wherein the Apex Court has held that “the High Court rightly held that once there is breach of condition of policy the liability cannot be fastened on the insurer” 24. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. ltd. in case number Special leave to appeal (C) No(s).31406/2017) dated 22.11.2017 wherein the Apex Court has held that “the High Court rightly held that once there is breach of condition of policy the liability cannot be fastened on the insurer” 24. Having heard the rival submissions as raised by the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that it has been proved that the premium was paid against the driver and only against another one, he may be either conductor or cleaner or employee employed by the insured. In view of the permitted sitting restriction of 1+1, there is a clear breach of policy condition committed by the owner-respondent. Here, the deceased was not at all an employee of the insured and was an employee of C.B.I. Brick Kiln Industry. Having held so, I set aside the judgment and award dated 25.04.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No-4, in connection with case No T.S. (MAC) 292 of 2010 fastening the liability upon appellant-Insurance Company. 25. In the result, in view of the observations and discussions as afore-stated, I have no other alternative but to fasten the liability upon the owner-respondent No.2, who has been held to be solely liable to make the payment of compensation as determined by the learned Tribunal for Rs.11,90,020/- which shall carry interest @7% per annum. The amount of compesnation remains unaltered as none of the parties has raised any grievance to the said compensation. However, the order of the Tribunal imposing penal interest @ 9% per annum is set aside. 26. However, it would be the initial liability of the insurance company to pay the said amount of compensation of Rs.11,09,020/- to the claimant-respondents in equal shares. At the same time, the appellant-Insurance Company is entitled to recover the said amount from the owner-insured-respondent No.2 by a certificate proceeding under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Insurance company is further directed to pay the said amount to the claimant-respondents within a period of three months from today. Needless to say, the amount, if any, already paid by the Insurance Company, be adjusted while making final payment as indicated above. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and stands disposed of. No costs. 28. The Insurance company is further directed to pay the said amount to the claimant-respondents within a period of three months from today. Needless to say, the amount, if any, already paid by the Insurance Company, be adjusted while making final payment as indicated above. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and stands disposed of. No costs. 28. Registry is directed to furnish a copy of the judgment to learned counsel for the parties on payment of requisite fees. Send back the L.C.Rs.