JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. Heard Shri A. Ravishankar, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company, Shri Shripad V. Shastri, learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 - claimants and Shri M. Babu, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 - owner of offending vehicle. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 04.08.2010 of the Compensation Commissioner, Bangalore passed in WCA.FC.Cr.No.34/2008 granting compensation of Rs.4,50,440/- with interest at 7½ % p.a. from 29.04.2008 to 04.08.2010 and 12% from 4.8.2010 till the date of deposit. The liability fixed on the Insurance Company as well as the quantum of compensation awarded is challenged in this appeal. 3. The factual matrix is that on 17.02.2008, one Anandakumar who was in employment with the third respondent herein as a Conductor cum cleaner of the bus bearing Regn.No.KA-01-B-2009, while on duty met with a motor accident and died. The deceased was aged 19 years at the time of the accident and was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month with batya of Rs.30/- per day. In view of the fact that the accident took place during his course of employment with the third respondent, the parents of deceased Anandakumar filed a claim before the Compensation Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation. 4. After service of notice, owner of the offending bus remained absent and was placed exparte. However, the Insurance Company appeared through counsel an filed their objection statement interalia contending that the liability to cover the risk of a cleaner in a passenger vehicle is not covered under the motor policy unless additional premium is paid. It was further contended that since no additional premium was paid, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. It was further contended that as per the complaint of the conductor of the bus Gangaramaiah, the deceased who was working as a cleaner was negligently standing on the foot-board of the bus and was peeping outside and the accident had occurred wholly due to his carelessness. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. In support of their case, first claimant was examined as PW-1 and in support of his case he got marked Exhibits P to P7. The Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 who in support of his case got marked Exhibits R1 to R6. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. In support of their case, first claimant was examined as PW-1 and in support of his case he got marked Exhibits P to P7. The Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 who in support of his case got marked Exhibits R1 to R6. The Commissioner then framed issues for its consideration and answered the issues in the affirmative and proceeded to partly allow the claim of the appellants for compensation. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation as well as the liability fastened on the Insurance Company. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company contends that there is no dispute that the deceased Anandkumar was a cleaner in the Insured's vehicle. However, the observation of the Commissioner that, Rs.100/- which was received by the Company to cover the risk of two employees does not indicate that the said premium was paid to cover the risk of only the driver and the conductor, is bad in law and against the provisions of Section 147 of the MV Act. He vehemently contends that the statutory liability under the Employees Compensation Act is only to the driver and the conductor in a private bus and there is no statutory liability to cover the risk of a cleaner unless additional premium is paid. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramashray Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.5147/2003), wherein the relevant portion reads as under: "...The appellant's next submission was that the concerned employee was a 'conductor'. It is doubtful whether a 'khalasi' and a conductor are the same. But assuming this were so, there is nothing to show that the appellant had paid any additional premium to cover the risk of injury to a conductor. On the contrary, the policy shows that premium was paid for 13 passengers and 1 driver. There is no payment of premium for a conductor. The appellant's final submission was that as the policy was a comprehensive one, it would cover all risks including the death of the khalasi. The submission is unacceptable. An insurance policy only covers the person or classes of persons specified in the policy. There is no payment of premium for a conductor. The appellant's final submission was that as the policy was a comprehensive one, it would cover all risks including the death of the khalasi. The submission is unacceptable. An insurance policy only covers the person or classes of persons specified in the policy. A comprehensive policy merely means that the loss sustained by such person/persons will be payable upto the insured amount irrespective of the actual loss suffered. Consequently, although the appellant's claim under the insurance policy arose under the Workmen's Compensation Act, since the concerned employee was not engaged in the capacity of driver in respect of whom alone premium was paid apart from the passengers, his claim is unsustainable. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs." It is further contended that the owner of the offending bus remained exparte and the burden which he was required to discharge was not discharged by him and hence the liability ought to be fixed on the owner of the vehicle. On all these grounds, the learned counsel contends that the impugned order passed by the Compensation Commissioner fastening the liability on the Insurer is bad in law and requires to be set aside. 7. By way of reply, learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 - claimants contends that the statement of the so-called conductor Gangaramaiah is not at all proved by way of evidence and it is only a statement recorded by the police, which has no legal value at all. Since he was not at all examined before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, the benefit goes to the claimant. In support of his contention regarding liability, the learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Company, Bangalore vs. Thimmareddy & another, (1998) 4 KarLJ 66 , wherein the relevant portion reads as under: "...The claimant was an employee and he was regular driver in the vehicle. This was a claim preferred under Workmen's Compensation Act. The scheme of the act would straightaway make the employer or the master liable in case of injury to the workman and liability of Insurance Company being the vicarious one, would be automatic. This was a claim preferred under Workmen's Compensation Act. The scheme of the act would straightaway make the employer or the master liable in case of injury to the workman and liability of Insurance Company being the vicarious one, would be automatic. It would not be possible to get away from this position merely on the basis of the scheme of Insurance Policy -- Even in the case of spare driver who is not actually driving the vehicle at the time of accident the statutory cover in Section 147(1) and 1(c) of the MV Act as an employee of the owner of the vehicle traveling in the course of employment, the claimant would be entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act." Hence, the learned counsel contends that the Insurer cannot contend that he is not liable to pay the compensation. 8. Further as regards liability, the learned counsel points out that the Insurance Policy at Exhibit R1 clearly indicates that additional premium of Rs.100/- was paid to cover the risk of two employees of the bus. The learned counsel contends that though the policy indicates that it covers the risk of two employees, it does not specifically indicate that it covers the risk of the driver and the conductor of the bus alone. When it does not specify that the policy covers the risk of driver and conductor alone, the Compensation Commissioner was very well justified in holding that the policy issued by the Insurer covered the risk of the cleaner as well. Hence, the judgment relied by the learned counsel in Ramashray Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the present appeal, as it is established that additional premium was in fact paid by the insured to cover the risk of the cleaner as well. Hence, he contends that there is no fault in the Compensation Commissioner fastening the liability on the Insurer to pay the compensation, which does not call for any interference. On these grounds, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 9. On a careful evaluation of the material on record, I find that there is no dispute about the accident that occurred on 17.02.2008. There is also no dispute that Anandkumar who was working as a conductor cum cleaner died in the said accident. On these grounds, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 9. On a careful evaluation of the material on record, I find that there is no dispute about the accident that occurred on 17.02.2008. There is also no dispute that Anandkumar who was working as a conductor cum cleaner died in the said accident. Further, there is no dispute that he was an employee of the third respondent; in that, he was employed as a cleaner of the bus bearing Regn.No.KA-01-B-2009 which was duly insured with the appellant - Insurance Company. The dispute in this appeal is regarding the insurance coverage in respect of the cleaner of the offending bus. An examination of the Insurance Policy Exhibit R1 discloses that the policy was in force and an additional premium was paid to cover the risk of 'two employees'. The policy does not indicate the said two employees to be 'driver' and 'conductor'. It is not in dispute that the cleaner was also an employee. Hence, it is clear that the policy covers the risk of the 'cleaner' as well. Hence, I find no fault in the order passed by the Compensation Commissioner fastening the liability on the Insurer to pay the compensation. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Compensation Commissioner. The appeal stands rejected. Consequently, the award passed by the Compensation Commissioner is hereby confirmed. Office to draw the decree accordingly.