JUDGMENT

Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.02.2013 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ranchi in W.C. Case No.55/2011 wherein the claimants had been awarded a sum of Rs. 3,42,792/-.

3. Brief facts of case as per the claim petition is that the deceased-Bhuneshwar Munda son of Late Bal Kishun Munda was working as a labour, employed by Raman Oraon (O.P. No.1) in relation to truck bearing registration No.JH03F-6202. While truck was moving from village Siram to Ranchi at Ambatanr, the truck met with an accident resulting in spot death of Bhuneshwar Munda.

4. The case had been filed under Workmen Compensation''s Act 1923. The only defense which is relevant for the purpose of present appeal is that, "Whether the deceased was covered under the definition of cleaner or not?"

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the pleading and evidence, it is evident that the deceased was a labour not a cleaner. It has been further submitted that as per the insurance policy, premium has only been paid for covering the risk of driver and not for others.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Narmati Subba reported in (2013) 1 TAC 398 SC . Para-24-25 of the said judgment is quoted herein below

24. It is worth to note that sub-clause (i)(c) refers to an employee who is being carried in the vehicle covered by the policy. Such vehicle being a goods carriage, an employee has to be covered by the statutory policy .On an apposite reading of Sections 147 and 167 the intendment of the Legislature, as it appears to us, is to cover the injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in a vehicle and an employee who is carried in the said vehicle. It is apt to state here that the proviso commences in a different way. A policy is not required to cover the liability of the employee except an employee covered under the 1923 Act and that too in respect of an employee carried in a vehicle. To put it differently, it does not cover all kinds of employees. Thus, on a contextual reading of the provision, schematic analysis of the Act and the 1923 Act, it is quite limpid that the statutory policy only covers the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage. It does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorized agent in place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of goods, cannot be covered by the statutory policy and to hold otherwise would tantamount to causing violence to the language employed in the Statute. Therefore, we conclude that the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured.

25. Presently, for the sake of completeness, we shall refer to the policy. The policy, exhibit R- 2/3/A, clearly states that insurance is only for carriage of goods and does not cover use of carrying passengers other than employees not more than six in number coming under the purview of the 1923 Act. The language use in the policy reads as follow:-

"The policy does not cover:

1. Use for organized racing, pace-making reliability trial or speed testing

2. Use whilst dwaing a trailer except the towing (other then for reward) or any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle.

3. Use for varying passengers in the vehicle except employees (other than driver) not exceeding six in number coming under the purview of Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923."

7. On the strength of above judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is jurisdictional error committed by the Presiding Officer, Lower Court in granting compensation to a labour as he was not covered under the policy of insurance.

8. Further, plea has been raised before this Court that the vehicle in question w