JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.09.2013, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 19 of 2008. 3. Facts of the case in short is that on 06.08.2007, a trailer loaded with iron sheets fell down in ditch near 50 yards East of Banarasi Hotel on N.H. 33. It is the further case of the claimant that the crane bearing Reg. No. 38 C-8627 was engaged to pull the said trailer and when the deceased namely, Arbind Singh was trying to hook, trailer with chain of the crane then in the meantime the driver of the said crane drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner due to which the iron sheets loaded over the trailer fell down over the said Arbind Singh causing fatal injuries to him and due to said injuries, he died on the spot. It is further case of the claimant that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family and due to his accidental death, the claimants have been suffering pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses for which they are entitled to get compensation from the Opposite Party-Appellant. It is the further case of the claimants that the deceased was a labourer and he was earning Rs. 3000/- per month and due to his death, the claimant No.1 has deprived of companionship of her husband and other claimants have also lost the love and affection of their father. On these grounds, prayer was made to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lakh with interest @ 9% per annum accrued thereon. On the other hand, case of the Insurance Co. was that the claim application is not maintainable and the claimants have no cause of action. It is further alleged that the O.P. No. 1 is not a registered owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. HR-38C-8627 and the Insurance Co. has not issued any policy in favour of the said Harendra Singh and the risk of labour is not covered under the alleged insurance policy, so the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any compensation and there is no contract between Harendra Singh and the answering Opposite Party i.e. the Insurance Co. with regard to coverage of the alleged risk. It was further alleged that the interest in Crane bearing Reg. is not liable to pay any compensation and there is no contract between Harendra Singh and the answering Opposite Party i.e. the Insurance Co. with regard to coverage of the alleged risk. It was further alleged that the interest in Crane bearing Reg. No. HR-38C-8627 is covered at material time of accident with the answering Opposite Party but the said policy is subject to different terms and conditions of the policy and in case of any violation of such terms of the policy, the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any compensation and it cannot be asked to indemnify the loss of the owner. Lastly, it was alleged that the claim made by claimant was excessive and exorbitant and it cannot be accepted in want of any document and no extra premium was paid to cover the risk of any labourer of the owner of the said vehicle. So the Insurance Co. cannot be asked to indemnify the loss of the owner. 4. The parties appeared before the Tribunal and were heard. After examining the witnesses and perusing the evidences on record, the learned Tribunal framed the followings issues:- (I) Is the compensation case as framed maintainable? (II) Whether the applicants have valid cause of action for the Award? (III) Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of crane bearing Reg. No. HR-38C-8627? (IV) Whether the deceased namely Arbind Singh was also guilty for any contributory negligence? (V) Whether there is violation of any terms of the policy within the meaning of Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act? (VI) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation as prayed? If yes, then against whom and to what extent? (VII) Whether the claimants are entitled to any relief or reliefs? 5. The Tribunal after discussing all the aforesaid issues in details, allowed compensation case filed by the applicants directing the Opposite Party No. 2, the United Insurance Co. to submit account payee cheque of Rs. 4,36,000/- in the name of applicant No. 1 namely, Rameshwari Devi along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of settlement of issue i.e. 06.08.2012 till the date of realization, subject to deduction of payment made in compliance of the order passed under Section 140 of the Act. Upon such deposit, the applicant No. 1 was directed to receive the said compensation amount on behalf of all the applicant. Upon such deposit, the applicant No. 1 was directed to receive the said compensation amount on behalf of all the applicant. She was further directed to deposit Rs. 2.00 lakh in five years fixed deposit scheme in any Nationalized Bank in order to secure the interest of minor applicants. 6. The appellant-insurance Co. has assailed the impugned Award on the following grounds:- (a) The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is bad in law as well as on facts and the same is liable to be set aside. (b) The learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the claim of the applicant to the extent of Rs. 4.36 lakh against the appellant without appreciating the legal proposition as well as the facts of the case. (c) The Tribunal has passed the order without considering the fact that the risk of labourer was not covered since the owner of the vehicle has not paid any premium to cover the risk of person other than the driver of the vehicle. (d) The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that policy was only for ''Liability Only Policy'', which means that no additional premium was paid by the Owner to cover the risk of labourer in the crane. Liability to indemnify the owner was limited only to the extent of driver alone according schedule of premium and no other person was covered under the Policy. Further, labourer does not comes under ''Third Party'' and hence, the appellant does not owe any liability to pay any compensation for death or bodily injury under the Policy. (e) The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that under Section 147(1)(b) of the M.V. Act, insurer is liable to indemnify only the classes of persons specified in the Act, the deceased who was stated to be Khalasi/ Labourer in the crane was not covered and as such, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants for which no liability has been undertaken by the insured. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the findings derived by the learned Tribunal at para-18 is perverse. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance to the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Ramashray Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2003 AIR SCW 3601 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the findings derived by the learned Tribunal at para-18 is perverse. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance to the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Ramashray Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2003 AIR SCW 3601 . 8. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and submits that the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is not at all applicable in the instant case. What is being argued is not in the terms and conditions of the Agreement and what is not in the Agreement and not on record cannot be argued and supplemented. Learned counsel further argued that Insurance Co. has suppressed the facts and travelling beyond the pleadings cannot be allowed. Supporting the impugned order, learned counsel submits that para-18 of the judgment of the Tribunal is very clear and no interference is warranted. 9. Having heard the parties and from perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal and also from perusal of lower Court records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Court below has taken into consideration the issues raised by the Insurance Co. and has rightly come to a finding that the deceased was the employee of the Owner of the offending vehicle and since the Insurance Co. had realized premium of Rs. 25/- to cover the risk of one employee of the Owner is liable to indemnify the loss of the owner and further, in the F.I.R. nowhere it has been mentioned that the deceased was the labourer of the alleged offending vehicle but in that case, risk of the deceased was also covered as 3rd party. So either as labourer of offending vehicle or as 3rd party, the risk of the deceased is covered under the policy in question and rightly the Insurance Co. has been held liable to pay the compensation to the dependents of the deceased. 10. I don''t find if any interference is attracted in the impugned order. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed, the Claimants are entitled for compensation as per the terms and conditions laid down by the learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 09.9.2013. 11. The Insurance Co. has been held liable to pay the compensation to the dependents of the deceased. 10. I don''t find if any interference is attracted in the impugned order. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed, the Claimants are entitled for compensation as per the terms and conditions laid down by the learned Tribunal vide its judgment dated 09.9.2013. 11. The Insurance Co. is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited before this Court. 12. Office is directed to return the lower Court records to the Court below at the earliest.