1. Heard the learned counsel Sri Prakash Kumar on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel Sri Chandan Kumar Kashyap for the respondents No. 1 & 2 and the learned counsel Rakesh Kumar, for the respondent No. 3 under Order 41, rule 11 C.P.C.

2. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act against the order dated 4.6.2005 passed in W.C. Case No. 12 of 1997 passed by the deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Commissioner under Workmens Compensation Act, Munger Division at Begusarai whereby the learned Commissioner awarded Rs. 1,11,355/- for the death of Khalasi of a trekker of the Insurance Company, the appellant has been directed to pay the same.

3. According to claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased, Neeraj Kumar filed the Claim Case alleging that on 6.8.1993, the driver of trekker bearing registration No. 9/8553 and the Khalasi Neeraj Kumar alias Babloo were killed by miscreants in course of their employment. The said claim under the Workmens Compensation Act was numbered as W.C. No. 12 of 1997.

4. After notice, the owner of the trekker bearing registration No. BR-9/8553 appeared and filed written statement stating that the said trekker was registered with the United India Insurances Company Ltd. Begusarai. And, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

5. The Opposite Party No. 2, the insurance company who is appellant in this appeal filed written statement contending that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation for the Khalasi. Besides this plea, the other pleas were taken by the appellant. The main defence was that the insurance companys liability was limited strictly to the policy.

6. After hearing the parties, the learned commissioner directed the appellant to pay the compensation on the ground that on the date of the incident, the trekker was insured with the appellant and the appellant- insurance company has paid the compensation regarding death of the driver.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the substantial question of law that whether the insurance company without their being specific agreements and payment of separate premium can be directed to pay the compensation regarding death of the Khalasi.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant raised the substantial question of law that whether the insurance company without their being specific agreements and payment of separate premium can be directed to pay the compensation regarding the death of Khalasi who is not covered by the policy.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurance policy clearly shows that the premium paid was only for 10+1 persons that is, the 10 passengers and one driver and not for Khalasi.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the trekker was insured on the date of accident, the insurance company is liable to pay.

11. In view of the above contentions of the parties, it appears that there is no dispute regarding the occurrence and the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned commissioner. The only question raised is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is liable to pay or not?

12. From perusal of the insurance policy, it appears that premium was paid only for 10+1 passengers that is, only for 10 passengers and the driver. Khalasi is not included in the said premium. It is admitted fact that there is no special contract between the appellant and the owner of the trekker so as to cover unlimited liability in respect of Khalasi also. In my opinion, therefore, in absence of such an express agreement, the policy will cover only the statutory liability. The mere fact that the insurance policy is a comprehensive policy, the liability of the appellant will not be unlimited. It does not mean that the risk becomes unlimited or higher than the statutory liability.

13. This court in si