inference that though the deceased were not engaged by RW1 directly, still by virtue of practice he inferentially engaged them. Therefore, it is preposterous to argue that the deceased and others travelled only as gratuitous or unauthorized passengers in the vehicle. Now, a perusal of policy shows the appellant collected premium of Rs.50/- to give coverage to the legal liability to driver/conductor/cleaner. Apart from the same, a separate premium of Rs.150/- was collected to extend the legal liability to coolies (E & DT IMT 39). Therefore, this premium certainly covers the risk of coolies. As rightly argued by the counsel for respondents, premium is not restricted to certain number of coolies resulting thereby, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of all the claims. The decision in Anjana Shyam (1 supra) cited by the learned counsel for appellant has no application in the present instance. In that case, a bus which had seating capacity of 42 passengers was insured for such number of passengers. However, the bus was overloaded carrying about 90 passengers at the time of accident. In such circumstances, while limiting the liability of Insurance Company to 42 passengers alone, it was directed that the Insurance Company should satisfy 42 awards in descending order starting from the highest of the awards. The Tribunal was directed to distribute the total amount deposited by the Insurance Company proportionately to all the claimants and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, as already discussed, while collecting Rs.150/- premium, the Insurance Company has not restricted the number of coolies. Hence, it has to bear the responsibility
