HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A.No.1042 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order in W.C.No.113 of 2003 on the file of the Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Cuddapah, questioning the liability of the Insurance Company. 2. The deceased D.Srinivsa Raju was said to be employed for loading and unloading on the Tipper bearing No.AP 04 T 7318 as a collie. On 16.07.2002 when the deceased along with others was going as a coolie at Nandalur, the vehicle was stopped and the driver of the Tipper without taking care moved the tipper in a rash and negligent manner when the deceased was getting down and consequently it ran over the deceased and died. The petitioners are the dependants on him and he was said to be aged 38 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per annum. The Insurance Company has opposed the claim stating that the policy does not cover the risk of the deceased and therefore, the liability under the policy does not arise. The Commissioner after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the cause of the death was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper and also accepted the liability of the insurance Company and by applying the minimum wages granted compensation of Rs.1,99,732/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. 3. The point for consideration is whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation? 4. POINT: The learned counsel for the appellant does not seriously dispute the nature of the incident or the quantum of compensation. According to him, the policy of insurance, which was given for the vehicle, does not cover the coolie and consequently, he is not an employer on the vehicle and there is no liability. In fact, the same contention was raised before the lower Tribunal. The fact that the deceased was going on the Tipper for loading and unloading of the sand is not seriously disputable. Therefore, his employment for the purpose of use of the Tipper can be inferred and therefore, he can be taken as a collie, who was employed for the purpose of use of the vehicle. 5. As can be seen from the policy, the risk is covered under Workmen Compensation Act for two employees by collecting a premium of Rs.30,000/- and other employees by collecting a sum of Rs.50/-. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the coverage of Workmen Compensation employees is meant only for driver and clear and the other employees for whom the premium was collected is only the owner of the goods and consequently, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount under the award. The policy by itself does not show that the coverage of the two employees under Workmen Compensation Act is for the cleaner and driver only. Even otherwise the extra premium collected for the employees on the vehicle is also not specifically mentioned. The only inference that can be drawn is that the employees for whom the extra premium was collected at Rs.50/- can be only the coolies were employees and therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability and there is no point to interfere with the award. Point is answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:13.10.2011 INL