Judgment: This appeal arises against the order of compensation awarded by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madras. The appellant, Sri Subba Rao, is a contractor. The respondent is the widow of the deceased Dorai Naicker, who was employed by the appellant in his contract work. The appellant is a lorry owner and he supplied sand to various concerns. In the course of such supply to Ashok Leyland, the respondent’s husband, who was in the employment of the appellant, met with an accident, as a result of which he died. The respondent filed an application before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madras, who awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,400. It is against this order awarding compensation that the appellant has preferred this appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the deceased Dorai Naicker was not a workman as defined in section 2 (1) (n) of the Act and that the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation treating Dorai Naicker as a workman under section 2 (1) (n) of the Act is wrong. According to him, the relevant section applicable in this case is clause (i) of Schedule II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which runs as follows: “Any person who is employed, otherwise than in a clerical capacity or on a railway, in connection with the operation or maintenance of a lift or vehicle propelled by steam or other mechanical power or by electricity or in connection with the loading or unloading of any such vehicle.” The facts of this case clearly establish that the deceased Dorai Naicker was engaged as a cooly or labourer to load and unload and that he met with the accident while he was in the lorry. It has been established beyond doubt that the deceased was employed by the appellant and that he received payments from the appellant. It has also been established beyond doubt that the deceased was a workman within the definition of “workman” in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The next point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is no proof to show that he died in the course of the employment. The argument, is, the deceased was specially engaged for loading and re-loading and at the time of his death, he was neither loading nor re-loading. The next point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is no proof to show that he died in the course of the employment. The argument, is, the deceased was specially engaged for loading and re-loading and at the time of his death, he was neither loading nor re-loading. It is relevant at this stage to refer to the case reported in Rampeary Dasodin v. Bhattacharrya & Co.1, where their Lordships interpreted clause (i) of Schedule II in the following terms: “Persons employed by public carriers for loading and unloading goods could not be said to be concerned with the operation and maintenance of lorries and the present clause makes it clear beyond doubt that a person employed on loading or unloading a vehicle may be said to be employed in connection with its operation.” Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the deceased Dorai Naicker died in the course of employment. Once it is established that he was a workman employed by the appellant and that he died in the course of his employment, it naturally follows that the appellant is bound to pay the compensation to the dependants of the deceased workman and the quantum of damages fixed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Rs. 2,400 calls for no interference. The appeal fails, but in the circumstances there will be no costs. K.S. -------------- Appeal dismissed.