JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by United India Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the Order dated 17.10.2015 passed in F.C.No.10 of 2012 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapuramu. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are wife and daughter of the deceased filed E.C.No.10 of 2012 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-, on the account of death of the deceased. Deceased died in an accident occurred on 19.01.2012 due to negligence of driver of TATA van bearing No.AP 07 TU 3194. The deceased was working as Salesman in Pepsi Agency Company of opposite party No.1 on a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. On 19.01.2012 while the deceased was transporting Pepsi bottles in the subject van, the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner near O.D. Cheruvu-Nallamda Road and lost control due to which van turned turtle. As a result, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The van belongs to opposite party No.1 and it is insured with opposite party No.2. As the deceased died during the course of employment, the present claim is filed. 3. Opposite party No.1 filed counter wherein the facts with regard to employment, salary of the deceased and his death during course of employment are not disputed. It is averred that the crime vehicle was insured with opposite party No.2 and policy is in force on the date of alleged accident. Therefore, opposite party No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it. 4. Opposite party No.2 filed counter disputing the age, employment, wage of the deceased and his death during course of employment. It is averred that risk of deceased, who is salesman is not covered by the policy as no extra premium has been paid. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, Commissioner framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased was employee as per the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in to death? 2. What was the age of the deceased employee at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the deceased employee at the time of accident? 4. 2. What was the age of the deceased employee at the time of accident? 3. What were the wages paid to the deceased employee at the time of accident? 4. What is the amount of compensation payable? 5. Who are liable to pay compensation? 6. On behalf of the applicants, applicant No.1 was examined as AW1 besides examined witness as AW2 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and Ex.B1 is filed through him. 7. After considering the evidence adduced on either side, the Commissioner held that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,07,117/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. from 30.05.2012 till the day of realization besides stamp duty of Rs.1,214/- within thirty days from the date of receipt of said order, failing which penalty shall be paid and further directed the owner of the crime vehicle to pay interest on the compensation amount. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by opposite party No.2. 8. Heard Sri M. Upendra Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. N. Sasikala, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that crime vehicle was not authorized to carry the deceased. As per Ex.B1, risk of the general employees i.e. salesman of Pepsi company is not covered and the deceased was not working as an employee under the owner of the vehicle. He submits that vehicle is a goods vehicle and no additional premium was paid by the owner of the vehicle seeking coverage of the persons carried in the vehicle. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that additional amount of Rs.25/- was paid. The insurance policy covers risk of the employees. She submits that in fact suggestion was put to RW1 in his cross-examination and RW1 deposed that as per the records, the deceased was working as employee under opposite party No.1 since eight years. He also admitted that a premium of Rs.25/- was collected to cover the risk of WC of employee. 11. She submits that in fact suggestion was put to RW1 in his cross-examination and RW1 deposed that as per the records, the deceased was working as employee under opposite party No.1 since eight years. He also admitted that a premium of Rs.25/- was collected to cover the risk of WC of employee. 11. While admitting the appeal the following substantial question of law is formulated: Whether the Commissioner erred in passing the award against the insurance company when deceased was working as salesman as on the date of accident as he cannot be termed as employee and the risk is not required to be covered under law? 12. The statutory requirements in claims filed under Workmen Compensation Act are that, the death of the deceased should be out of employment and during the course of employment. The burden lies on the insurance company to prove that the deceased was not an employee and his death did not occur during the course of employment. 13. In the present case, the deceased was employee of opposite party No.1 and the said fact was admitted by RW1 in his crossexamination. RW1 further admitted that the deceased was working as employee under opposite party No.1 since eight years. He also admitted that on the date of accident, the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as an employee, for distribution of Pepsi bottles and that the deceased died in the accident. Further in Ex.A1/F.I.R., which is the earliest document, it was mentioned that the deceased, salesman of Pepsi Agency, sitting in the van died on the spot. Thus, it can be concluded that the deceased died out of employment and during the course of employment. 14. With regard to the plea taken by learned counsel for the appellant that the risk of workman is not covered under the insurance policy, it is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of cross-examination of RW1, which reads thus: “… It is true to say that the premium of Rs.25/- collected from the OP1 to cover the risk of WC to employee. The witness adds that workman covered under endorsement No.39 of the schedule of the policy. It is true to say that the premium of Rs.100/- collected to cover the risk of owner cum driver, i.e. personnel accident cover. …” 15. The witness adds that workman covered under endorsement No.39 of the schedule of the policy. It is true to say that the premium of Rs.100/- collected to cover the risk of owner cum driver, i.e. personnel accident cover. …” 15. Therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that the risk of deceased is not covered under the policy falls to ground. 16. Apart from the above, the learned Commissioner also discussed with regard to 1MT Endorsement 39, which speaks that legal liabilities to persons employed in connection with the operation and/or maintaining and or loading and or unloading of Motor Vehicles (for Goods Vehicles) in considering the payment of premium, the insurer shall indemnify the insured against his legal liabilities under the ‘Workmen’s Compensation Act’; 1M.T. (17 old) 39, which speaks that driver, cleaner or conductor and other workers are covered; 1 MT 14 (c) which speaks that any person travelling in the lorry in journey for the purpose of attending work will squarely be covered for risk of the injury or death. 17. The learned Commissioner after considering all these points and facts of the case came to the conclusion that the deceased was attending to load and unload pepsi bottles in the van and was travelling as Salesman and hence, he falls under category of employee of opposite party No.1 and hence, held that the risk of the deceased is covered under the policy. Therefore, Commissioner made the appellant herein also liable to pay the compensation to respondent Nos.1 and 2. 18. Learned Commissioner, after considering all the aspects basing on oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased took place while he was on duty. Nothing contra was produced or elicited during the course of cross examination of A.W.1 or A.W.2. The statutory requirements of occurrence of death of the deceased out of employment and during course of employment are proved and as per admission of RW1 a premium of Rs.25/- is collected from opposite party No.1 to cover the risk of workman compensation. Therefore, the risk of the employee is covered under the policy. 19. No question of law much less substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the appeal. There are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. Therefore, the risk of the employee is covered under the policy. 19. No question of law much less substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the appeal. There are no merits in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the Order dated 17.10.2015 passed in F.C.No.10 of 2012 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ananthapuramu. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.