1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is the appellant in these two miscellaneous appeals. The appellant disputes its liability to compensation amount awarded in these two awards in question, on the ground that claims of the claimants in these two cases are not covered by Ex.B-1 insurance policy issued by the appellant to owner of lorry which was involved in this accident while transporting a proclainer in body of that lorry. At this stage, there is no dispute of facts to the effect that Tripper Trailer Lorry bearing No.AP 27 T 6436 was transporting a proclainer from Ellareddigudem towards Guntur and that operator of the Proclainer by name Netala Raju was sitting in Cabin of that Lorry and that Simchalam and Kovvuri Ramana who were Supervisor and Helper on the Proclainer were sitting in the Proclainer which was loaded in the Trailor of the lorry and that the lorry with trailor turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of that lorry by its driver and that Simhachalam and Ramana fell under the proclainer and died on the spot and that operator Netala Raju and driver of the lorry sustained injuries. Dependents of the two deceased persons viz., Simhachalam and Ramana are the claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry in M.V.O.P.Nos.574 and 575 of 2003. After due enquiry in which P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 and Exs.B-1 to B-3 marked, the lower tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- and Rs.2,08,800/- to the claimants in the respective claims against driver, owner and the insurer (appellant herein) of the accident lorry. No appeals are filed by the claimants or owner of the lorry.

2. The appellant’s counsel contended that the two deceased persons viz., Simhachalam and Ramana were unauthorised passengers in the accident lorry and that therefore, the insurance- company is not liable to indemnify the lorry owner as claims relating to deaths of unauthorised passengers or even fare paid passengers are not covered by Ex.B-1 insurance policy. On the other hand, it is contended by the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that both the deceased were travelling in the accident lorry as agents of owner of the goods i.e., proclainer being transported in the accident lorry and that therefore, claims relating to their deaths are covered by Ex.B-1 insurance policy and that the appellant insurance-company cannot absolve its liability to pay compensation.

3. Ex.B-1 is a comprehensive insurance policy covering own damage as well as third party liability. It shows that apart from basic premium under third party liability, the lorry owner paid separate premium covering risk of two drivers and one cleaner apart from one authorised non-fare paying passenger under Endorsement-14 of the policy. The relevant clause in the policy reads as follows:

“IMT 14. LEGAL LIABILITY TO NON-FARE PAYING PASSENGERS WHO ARE NOT EMPLOYEES OF THE INSURED.

In consideration of the payment of an additional premium as stated in the Scheduled and not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section II-I( c ) it is hereby understood and agreed that the Company will indemnify the insured against liability and than liability under statute (except Fatal Accident Act, 1855) in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person not being an employee of the insured not carried for hire or reward provided that the person is

(a) the Charter or Representative of the Charter of the Truck

(b) Any person directly connected with the journey in one form or another being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle described in the Schedule of the Policy.”

Having regard to the said clause in respect of which specific premium is paid for one authorised non-fare paying passenger, it has to be seen whether risk of the two deceased who were admittedly travelling in body of the lorry by sitting inside the proclainer which was being t