JUDGMENT : The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity “the Act”) aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2009 passed in W.C.No.72 of 2007 by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa (for short “the Commissioner”). 2. The Appellant herein is the Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2 and the respondents No.1 and 2 herein are the applicants/claimants and respondent No.3 herein is the Opposite Party No.1 in W.C No.72 of 2007. For sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Commissioner. 3. The applicants have filed the impugned W.C.No.72 of 2007 before the Commissioner seeking for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with costs and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment against the Opposite Parties. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are the parents of N. Ramanjaneya Goud and he was working as a Lorry Cleaner under the employment of Opposite party No.1. The said N. Ramanjaneya Goud and one B. Venkata Narayana Reddy are the driver and cleaner of the Lorry bearing No.AP-02-W-1725 belongs to Opposite Party No.1 (OP.No.1). ON the instructions of OP No.1 both of them left from Rayalacheruvu with a load aof Dolomite in the lorry to Srikalahasti and on 4.3.2007 night the said B.V. Narayana Reddy was driving the lorry and the deceased was sitting in the cabin of the lorry and when the lorry reached near Siva Sai Petrol Bunk, Bhakarapet in between Kadapa-Vontimitta road at about 2.00 AM on 5.3.2007, one lorry bearing No.AP-21-W-5788 was parking on the road due to truck up of gear box and the driver of the suject lorry had not observed the said lorry and dashed on its rear side and as a result of which the Ramanajaneya Goud died on the spot. Thus the deceased died during the course and out of his employment under OP No.1 as a cleaner. Thereafter, the Sidhout Police registered a case in Cr.No.19 of 2007 under Section 304(A) IPC. The applicants herein are the parents of the deceased and they are solely depending upon the income of their deceased son. Due to his sudden death, the applicants lost everything and lost to the estate. Thereafter, the Sidhout Police registered a case in Cr.No.19 of 2007 under Section 304(A) IPC. The applicants herein are the parents of the deceased and they are solely depending upon the income of their deceased son. Due to his sudden death, the applicants lost everything and lost to the estate. The OP No.1 is the owner of the subject lorry and the said lorry was insured with OP No.2 and paid premium. The Policy Cover Note No.51227037 valid from 15.2.2007 to 14.2.2008. the accident took place on 5.3.2007 and the policy covers the risk of their parties, workers. Hence, OP No.2 has to indemnify the OP No.1. hence, both OP No.1 and OP No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5. The OP No.1 was remained ex parte. 6. The OP No.2 has filed counter and denied all the allegations made in the petition and stated that the applicants are put to strict proof about the manner of accident by producing certified copies of FIR, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report etc., and the OP No.1 did not paid any premium to this respondent to cover the risk of alleged cleaner working under the employment of OP No.1 and this respondent is not liable to indemnify the loss of OP no.1 and hence the applicants are put to strict proof about their relationship with the deceased and denied the age, health condition and wage and employee-employer relationship between the deceased and OP No.1 and the applicants are not issued any notice as contemplated under Section 10 of W.C Act, as such, the application is not maintainable. The deceased getting wages Rs.3,700/- per month and the same was spent towards his parents. The deceased is aged about 20 years prior to the accident. 7. During course of trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked and on behalf of the Opposite Parties, Sri J. Madan Mohan Reddy, who is working as Manager, Legal in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad examined as RW.1 and marked the policy was Ex.B1. 8. 7. During course of trial, on behalf of the applicants, AW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked and on behalf of the Opposite Parties, Sri J. Madan Mohan Reddy, who is working as Manager, Legal in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad examined as RW.1 and marked the policy was Ex.B1. 8. The learned Commissioner, after hearing on both sides and after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence, passed an order holding that, both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to despot an amount of Rs.3,72,202/- compensation besides Stamp duty of Rs.700/- by means of D.D drawn in favour of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool drawn on State Bank of India, Kurnool, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and also held that if they have failed to deposit the awarded amount within the stipulated time they have to pay the interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization and also pay penalty under Section 4(A) 3(b) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923. 9. This Court, vide order dated 23.12.2009, has granted interim stay on condition of the petitioner-appellant depositing 50% of the awarded amount including interest and costs within six (06) weeks from that day. 10. Thereafter, this Court vide order dated 19.12.2011, while permitting the appellant to take out fresh personal notice on the respondents concerned to the correct address and file proof of service, failing which, the appeal stands dismissed against whom the notice to be served and also for non-prosecution and also held that if any of the respondents or the parties died, the appellant/s is/are directed to bring the LRs on record, within six weeks failing which the appeal stands abated and liable for dismissal for non-prosecution. Though the above order not complied with by the respondents No.1 and 2, the appeal against those respondents was dismissed for default vide orders dated 16.5.2012 and 19.2.2015. 11. Heard Sri Gudi Srinvias, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri N. Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. During hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the Commissioner is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 11. Heard Sri Gudi Srinvias, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri N. Chandrasekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. During hearing, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the Commissioner is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. He submits that the learned Commissioner failed to see that no premium is paid to cover the risk of the cleaner and hence there is no liability on the part of the appellant. The learned Commissioner also failed to see that there is no direct liability on part of the insurer under Section 14 of the W.C Act and that the lower Court has not applied the correct multiplier even otherwise. He further submits that the Commissioner failed to see that there is no liability for any interest more so imposing default clause is not proper and correct. Learned counsel mainly contended that the Commissioner failed to see that there is no proof of evidence with regard to the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the learned Commissioner has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant. 13. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Ramashray Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2003) 10 SCC 664 , wherein the Apex Court held that “Insurance policy covers only the person or classes of persons specified in the policy. Further held, comprehensive insurance policy convers the loss sustained by the insured up to the insured amount irrespective of the actual loss suffered.” 14. Learned counsel also relied upon a case of High Court of Judicature, Hyderabad reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nizamabad v. Suraya Bee and others, 2009 (4) ALT 760 (S.B.), wherein it was held that “As per proviso (i) to Section 147(1) of the Act, insurance policy does not cover liability of death of employee of insured person other than driver and conductor of vehicle – policy of insurance referred to in Section 147(1) cover liability upto limits mentioned therein – policy shows that extra premium was paid only to five coolies – no separate premium paid for cleaner – cleaner of lorry therefore not covered under policy -insurer therefore not liable to pay compensation for the death of cleaner.” 15. In another decision reported in Dudekula Salabee v. R. Siva Sankar Reddy and another, 2008 (1) ALD 161 , wherein it was held that : “Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Sections 147 and 146 - Insurance policy - Limits of Death of deceased employed as Hamali with owner of tractor and trailor Compensation - Liability of insurer Extent of coverage of policy - There must be a contractual obligation in shape of insurance policy - There must be a specific condition under policy covering a person or persons like deceased in the case A separate premium has to be paid for such a person or classes of persons and then only, obligation of indemnification by insurer does arise Claim of claimant against insurer cannot be held to be valid Competent authority under Workmen's Compensation Act was right in awarding compensation, fastening liability only against insured - Inasmuch as there is no separate obligation against insured and insurer covering risk of present nature, question of liability of insurer does not arise - CMA fails, liable to be dismissed [Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, Sections 3 and 30] The claim of claimant against the insurer cannot be held to be valid and the competent authority under the Act, confining itself to the limitations under the Act only, was right in awarding compensation, fastening the liability only against the insured and, inasmuch as, there is no separate contractual obligation between the insured and the insurer covering the risk of the present nature, the question of liability of insurer does not arise.” 16. In the present case, as seen from the Exhibits i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 and the evidence of AW.1, it clearly establishes that on the date of accident i.e., on 4.3.2007 as per the instructions of OP No.1 the deceased went in the lorry bearing No.AP-02-W-1725 as a Cleaner and one B.V. Narayana Reddy was the driver of the lorry and they loaded the lorry with dolomite in the lorry and left to Srikalahasti on 4.3.2007 at night time the deceased Cleaner was sitting on the cabin of the lorry and on 5.3.2007 at about 2.00 a.m. when the lorry reached near Siva Sai Petrol bunk, Bhakaraopeta village one lory bearing No.AP-21-W-5788 was stationed on the road and the gear box of the said lorry was struck up and that the driver of the lorry of OP No.1 was not observed the stationed lorry and dashed to its rear side of the stationed lorry and as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. This Court further observed that, the accident took place and the deceased died during his out of and in the course of his employment. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was a Cleaner and the same was clearly mentioned in the FIR and also in the Charge sheet. 17. It is observed from the evidence of RW.1 that in its chief examination clearly stated that their company is not liable to pay any compensation since OP No.1 has not paid any additional premium to cover the risk of the deceased cleaner and that OP No.1 is alone liable to pay compensation. 18. This Court further observed that, the OP No.1 is the owner of the lorry and the policy was in the name of OP No.2. The deceased was a cleaner in the lorry of OP No.1 and there was employee and employer relationship in between the deceased and the OP No.1, since the OP No.1 has insured the vehicle with OP No.2 and the policy was in force at the time of accident. 19. It is to be noted that Section 147 (1) of the Act shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident upto the limits mentioned therein. Therefore, if an extra premium is paid for cleaner, insurer is required to indemnify owner of vehicle against any third party risks. 19. It is to be noted that Section 147 (1) of the Act shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident upto the limits mentioned therein. Therefore, if an extra premium is paid for cleaner, insurer is required to indemnify owner of vehicle against any third party risks. Unless and until extra premium is paid under contract of insurance to cover liability for death of cleaner in accident, insurer is not liable to pay compensation for his death. In this case, no such premium is paid and therefore, insurer is not liable to pay compensation. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems fit to allow the present appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 21. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The order dated 22.06.2009 passed in W.C.No.72 of 2007 by the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.