JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the award dated 13.06.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, whereby, the Insurance Company was exonerated from indemnifing the insured. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from indemnifing the insured. In-fact, the owner had sought own damage claim from the Insurance Company and the same had been allowed by the Insurance Company Rs. 62,300/- had been paid to the owner towards own damage claim liability. Learned counsel has further submitted that as per the insurance policy Exhibit-A-1, premium had been paid to cover the risk of bodily injury etc. to the driver, other employee travelling in connection with the operation or maintenance or unloading of the motor vehicle. Premium had also been paid for non fare paying non passengers. It was the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that the appellant and his son were travelling in the vehicle in question for the purposes of unloading the vehicle as they had been assured that they would be paid Rs.100/- each for the said purpose. In the alternative appellants could have been treated as a non fare paying passenger. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that in the claim petition, it was not stated by the claimant that he was travelling in the truck for the purposes of unloading. Owner of the vehicle had denied that the claimant was his employee. Even in the FIR, it had not been stated by the son of the claimant that he was travelling in the vehicle along with his father for the purposes of unloading the same on payment basis. As per 37.A Indian Motor Tariff, a non fare paying passenger could be the only person, who was travelling in the vehicle in connection with the journey in one form or the other. 4. The controversy involved in the present case is as to whether the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle or not. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.1. Exhibit-A-1 is the insurance policy on record. A perusal of the same, reveals that the goods carrying commercial vehicle in question had been insured and a comprehensive policy had been issued in favour of the owner. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.1. Exhibit-A-1 is the insurance policy on record. A perusal of the same, reveals that the goods carrying commercial vehicle in question had been insured and a comprehensive policy had been issued in favour of the owner. Further premium had been paid to cover the risk of driver, coolies/other employees in connection with the operation, maintaining or unloading of motor vehicle and non fare paying non passengers. Indian Motor Tarrif 31.A reads as under :- "Legal Liability to Non Fare Paying Passengers who are not employees of the Insured (Commercial Vehicles only) In consideration of the paying of an additional premium of Rs... and notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section II-1(c) it is hereby understood and agreed that the company will indemnify the insured against his legal liability other then liability under Statute (except Fatal Accidents Act, 1855) in respect of death of bodily injury two any person not being employee of the insured and not carried for hire or reward provided that the person is (a) Charterer of representative of the charterer of the truck. (b) Any other person directly connected with the journey in one form or the other being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from vehicle insured described in the Schedule of this Policy." 5. In the present case, although, in the claim petition, it has not been stated by the claimant that he was travelling in the vehicle in question for the purposes of unloading and had been promised to be paid Rs. 100/- for the said purposes, but AW-2 Madan Lal has deposed that on 24.04.2003, he was going towards his village along with his father. In the meantime, truck bearing No. RJ-14G-7009 stopped near them and they were promised to be paid Rs. 100/- each for unloading the vehicle. They had boarded the vehicle. However, the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver and as a result, it turned turtle. His father had suffered serious injuries. The said witness was duly cross-examined, but his testimony in this regard could not be shaken. Owner has denied that the claimant was his employee. It is not the case of the claimant also that he was an employee of the owner of the vehicle. His father had suffered serious injuries. The said witness was duly cross-examined, but his testimony in this regard could not be shaken. Owner has denied that the claimant was his employee. It is not the case of the claimant also that he was an employee of the owner of the vehicle. In-fact, as per AW-2, claimant along with him was standing on the road when they were offered to go in the truck on payment of Rs. 100/- each for the purposes of unloading. Assuming that the claimant was not to be paid any amount for unloading the vehicle, then he could be treated as non fare paying passenger. Owner of the vehicle had paid additional premium for the driver, persons connected with unloading the motor vehicle and for non fare paying passenger. Insurance Company had paid own damage claim to the insurer. In these circumstances, the Tribunal fell in error in exonerating the Insurance Company of its liability to indemnify the insured. 6. Accordingly, finding on issue No.3 given by the Tribunal is set aside and the said issue is decided in favour of the appellants and against the Insurance Company. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. It is ordered that the Insurance Company as well as the appellants shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.