ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. 1.Present is an owner’s appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award dated 05.05.2016 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) in Claim Case No.353/2014 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the claimants and against the appellant. 2.The gist of claim before the Tribunal in short was that on 06.05.2011, deceased Pradeep Singh, who was working as a conductor & cleaner in the bus bearing registration No.CG 10 A 9222 had climbed on the roof of the said bus to load luggage. All of sudden, the driver of the said bus respondent no.5 Parmeshwar Jaiswal drove the bus negligently, due to which, Pradeep Singh fell down from the bus and died on the spot. The claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased, preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.7,51,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, award total compensation of Rs.3,71,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from its liability on the ground that the risk of the deceased was not covered and saddled the liability of payment of compensation upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle against which the present appeal has been filed by the owner. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was a valid policy covering the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The deceased was working as a conductor in the offending vehicle. As per the Imposed Condition IMT-28, the risk of the conductor or cleaner was also covered and therefore, there was no violation of any policy conditions. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability and prays for allowing the appeal by holding the Insurance Company also liable for payment of compensation. 4.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.6 opposes the prayer of the counsel for appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 4.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.6 opposes the prayer of the counsel for appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 5.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6.The Tribunal held, on the basis of insurance policy Exhibit D-1, that deceased Pradeep Singh was working as a conductor in the offending vehicle whereas the policy covered the risk of a third party as well as a driver and a cleaner. The risk of the conductor was not covered. Hence, the Tribunal exonerated the respondent No.6 insurance company from its liability of payment of compensation on the ground that the risk of the deceased was not covered, which has been challenged by the registered owner in this appeal. 7.From the evidence presented and the document Exhibit D-2, the Tribunal has found it proved that deceased Pradeep Singh was a conductor and it is also proved from his conductor license Exhibit D-2. As per the insurance policy Exhibit D-1, the premium paid is as follows:- Basic TP Cover 10,210.00 To Paid Driver Count : 1 25.00 To Paid Cleaner Count : 1 25.00 8.The policy also contains the following endorsement:- “Subject to IMT Endorsement Printed herein/attached to: IMT-28, IMT-21” 9.The other condition related documents are not attached with the policy Exhibit D-1. The said condition related documents have been submitted by the appellant party along with the appeal memo in which IMT-28 is as follows:- IMT. 28 Legal Liability to paid driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of insured vehicle (For all Classes of vehicles) In consideration of an additional premium of Rs.25 notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy it is hereby understood and agreed that the insurer shall indemnify the insured against the insured’s legal liability under the Workmen’sCompensation Act, 1923, the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or at Common Law and subsequent amendments of these Acts prior to the date of this Endorsement in respect of personal injury to any paid driver and/or conductor and/or cleaner whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with the vehicle insured herein and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent. Provided always that (1) this Endorsement does nto indemnify the insured in respect of any liability in cases where the insured holds or subsequently ;effects with any insurer or group of insurers a Policy of Insurance in respect of liability as herein defined for insured’s general employees; (2) the insured shall take reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and shall comply with all statutory obligations; (3) the insured shall keep record of the name of each paid driver conductor cleaner or persons employed in loading and/or unloading and the amount of wages and salaries and other earnings paid to such employees and shall at all times allow the insurer to inspect such records on demand. (4) in the event of the Policy being cancelled at the request of the insured no refund of the premium paid in respect of this Endorsement will be allowed. Subject otherwise to the terms conditions limitations and exceptions of the Policy except so far as necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In case of private cars/motorised to wheelers (not used for hire or reward) delete this para. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 insurance company has not denied the condition of IMT-28 presented by the appellant party. 11.As per the above insurance policy Exhibit D-1, premium has been taken for the cleaner and the condition of IMT-28 has also been mentioned. The cleaner or conductor is mentioned to be included in the condition of IMT-28. In such a situation, if deceased Pradeep Singh was the conductor of the offending vehicle, it will be considered that his risk is covered. 12.It has also been argued by the appellant side that sometime, the same person may work both as a conductor and a cleaner in the bus. So if any premium has been paid in one duty, the risk of the person working in the other duty should also be considered covered. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mangilal Vishnoi v. National Insurance Company Limited, AIR ONLINE 2022 SC 1188, in which the concept expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-8 is as follows:- “8. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mangilal Vishnoi v. National Insurance Company Limited, AIR ONLINE 2022 SC 1188, in which the concept expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-8 is as follows:- “8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the High Court has accepted appeal on a make-believe argument that Cleaner or Helper engaged by the employer are engaged in two different duties and that a Helper is not covered by the insurance policy. The High Court has recorded a finding that admittedly deceased was a Helper. In the absence of any clear demarcation of duties of a helper or a Cleaner and in view of the fact that Helper and Cleaner are interchangeably used, therefore, declining claim for the reason that deceased was engaged as a helper and not Cleaner is wholly unjustified. Additionally, the employer sought indemnification of five other employees engaged in loading or unloading activities by paying extra premium. It was for the insurance company to cross examine the witnesses produced by the claimant or by the owner to prove the fact that deceased was not engaged in loading or unloading activities. We find that the High Court has drawn a distinction between Helper and a Cleaner when none existed.” 13.Thus, in the light of the above evidence and law, it is clear that the deceased Pradeep Singh was working as a conductor in the offending vehicle. According to the insurance policy, the premium was paid for the cleaner. As per the Imposed Condition IMT-28, the risk of the conductor or cleaner was also covered and in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mangilal Vishnoi (supra), the same person can do the work of both conductor and cleaner. In such a situation, it will be presumed that the risk of deceased Pradeep Singh was also covered and the insurance company is liable for compensation under the insurance policy. Hence, the order of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company from its liability is erroneous and therefore is not found to be sustainable. 14.Thus, the appeal of the registered owner is allowed. The driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle as well as the insurance company i.e. respondent No. 6 are held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. 14.Thus, the appeal of the registered owner is allowed. The driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle as well as the insurance company i.e. respondent No. 6 are held jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. The remaining conditions of the impugned award are kept intact. 15.Records of the Tribunal along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith for compliance and necessary action, if any.