HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.5448 of 2008 17-06-2010 Between: The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore, rep. by its Branch manager, Vellore. ………Petitioner And T.Mani and another. ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.5448 of 2008 ORDER: This is an appeal filed by the New India Insurance Company Limited, Vellore, against the respondents questioning the award dated 29-12-2003 in M.V.O.P.No.218 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, whereunder, the Tribunal awarded compensation a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs in favour of the 1st respondent (claimant in O.P.No.208 of 2000). 2. The claimant sought compensation for a sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum on account of the injuries sustained by him. On 28-10-1998, the claimant was traveling in a mini lorry bearing Regn. No.TN-23-X-5553 along with a load of cement bags. The claimant is a cooli. On account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the claimant fell down from the vehicle underneath the cement bags and sustained fracture and other multiple injuries. He, therefore, sought for compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 3. The 2nd respondent herein (1st respondent in M.V.O.P/owner of the vehicle) remained ex parte in the M.V.O.P. The appellant/Insurance company contested the claim setting up a strange defence. It was contended that the claimant was not traveling in the vehicle; that the offending vehicle was stationed on Madras-Bangalore road; the driver and the owner went to the nearby tea stall for having tea; claimant and others attempted to committed theft of the cement bags from the lorry and when the claimant in the process of committing theft cut the ropes, on account of which, the cement bags and the claimants fell down and the claimant sustained injuries; and that no premium was paid for covering the risk of the policy for loading and unloading operations. On this primal defence, by attributing the incident to the claimant himself, the appellant-Insurance company sought discharge from its liability. 4. The Tribunal considered the matter and on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant and after considering the evidence on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, allowed the M.V.O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs with interest at 9% per annum both against the appellant/Insurance Company and the 2nd respondent herein jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the fastening of liability, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, fairly did not dispute rash and negligence and the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel would, however, contend that the claimant who is admittedly a cooli, is not entitled for compensation as the Insurance Policy, Ex.B-2, does not cover such persons. The learned counsel would further contend that the coolies are meant for loading and unloading purposes and they normally would not travel in the vehicles. He would therefore contend that since the claimant was not discharging the work of loading and unloading, he cannot be treated as a cooli, as such, not entitled for compensation. 7. It may be noted that the contention that the claimant was not discharging the work of loading and unloading the cement bags cannot be accepted. The defence was that the claimant was attempting to commit theft along with others and in that process sustained injuries. The appellant-Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence in support of the said plea and the submissions made are not in accordance with the plea taken before the Tribunal. 8. A perusal of Ex.B-2 Insurance Policy shows that extra premium was paid in respect of persons employed in connection with the operation or maintaining or unloading of motor vehicle. The policy also covers non-fair paying passengers and extra premium was paid in respect of the non-fair paying passengers also. From the evidence of record, it is evident that the claimant was a cooli engaged for loading and unloading the cement bags and for that purpose, he was traveling in the vehicle. 9. R.W.1 who was the Assistant Administrative Officer of the appellant-Insurance Company admitted in his evidence that persons employed in connection with the operation or maintaining or unloading the vehicle were covered by the policy. He also further admitted that non-fair paying passengers were also covered by the policy. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company cannot claim immunity from its liability under the policy. The Tribunal considered the matter elaborately and the findings have been rightly recorded. 10. In the above analysis, there are no merits in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 17th June 2010 KVR