S. ANANDA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the insurance company aggrieved by the award passed under Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) in W. C. No. 1270 of 1995 n. F. , dated 16. 10. 1997. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as arrayed before the lower authority.

( 2 ) AS per the application averments, the applicant who is the respondent No. 1 in the appeal, filed the application under section 22 of the Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000 together with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum with costs and penalty for the personal injuries sustained by him during the course of his employment under the respondent No. 1 before the lower authority. The insurance company, i. e. , the respondent No, 2 before the lower authority is the present appellant. It is stated in the application that the applicant was working as a, cleaner-cum-worker on the jeep bearing No. AP 25-T 481 under the respondent No. 1. He was being paid Rs. 1,800 per month as salary and Rs. 50 per day as batta. While applicant was in his employment on 1. 7. 1994, while the vehicle was going from Indalwai towards Dharpally side and when the jeep reached at Moddula Adavai, the driver of the jeep drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and lost control over it because of which the jeep turned turtle causing fracture injuries to both the legs of the applicant apart from other injuries to the chest, hands, head and other parts of his body. The applicant injured was admitted in local government Hospital at the first instance and later shifted to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was treated by the Government doctors. The applicant incurred an expenditure of Rs. 40,000 so far and requires further expenditure for his treatment. The accident took place during the course of his employment under the respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the vehicle, which was insured with respondent no. 2. Hence the claim for awarding compensation.

( 3 ) A counter has been filed by the respondent no. 2 disputing the claim made by the applicant and putting him to prove the allegations.

( 4 ) THE lower authority thereafter framed appropriate issues and after receiving the evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the accident occurred during the course of employment of the applicant. With reference to the claim of compensation a sum of Rs. 43,924 was awarded, which was directed to be paid by the respondent no. 2. Before the lower authority, one of the contentions raised was that the applicant being a cleaner is not covered by the policy issued by the insurance company. Though the authority below observed that such an objection was not raised at the earliest point of time but, however, considered die same and found that as per the policy issued by the insurance company, it covers six persons in all, including the driver and cleaner and in respect of the above six persons, the premium was collected and there is no specific exclusion of the cleaner. Therefore, it was held against the respondent No. 2 insurance company holding that even the applicant is covered by the policy issued by the respondent No. 2 insurance company. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent no. 2 insurance company, has come up with the present appeal.

( 5 ) THOUGH several grounds have been raised, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has strongly contended that the insurance company did not collect any additional premium so as to cover the liability with reference to the cleaner and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in respect of the liability of the cleaner. The learned counsel also contended that the policy issued by the appellant insurance company is only an Act policy and as per the provisions of the said policy only the driver and the passengers are covered and not the cleaner. In fact, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no provision for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document