( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 16-10-1993 in MVC No. 599 of 1990 passed by the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chitradurga, in passing whereof, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 65,000/- together with interest at 9% p. a. as against the appellant-Insurance Company and the respondent 7-owner, the liability being joint and several. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri K. Suryanarayana Rao and Sri B. M. Siddappa appearing for the respondents 1 to 6. The respondent 7 is represented by sri N. D. Jayadevappa. I have also perused the case records. ( 3 ) THE short point for my consideration in the instant appeal is whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (henceforth, 'mact' for convenience) fastening the entire liability on the appellant-Insurance Company without the same being restricted to what is awardable under the Workmen's Compensation Act as contemplated under Section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is proper or not. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri K. Suryanarayana Rao while taking me through the facts of the case and further urging the grounds in the appeal memorandum submitted that when the appellant-Insurance Company had produced and marked the insurance policy in question as Ex. D. 1 before the MACT, the MACT would have restricted the liability as against the appellant-Insurance Company under the above provision of law with reference to Section 4 read with Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act. According to him, if the liability had been restricted under the said provision of law, the liability of the insurance Company would have been fastened under the impugned judgment and award would be limited to Rs. 47,424/- with interest at 6% p. a. He had also drawn my attention to Ex. D. 1 wherein a sum of Rs. 8/- was paid by the respondent 1-owner covering wider liability insofar as the driver of the vehicle in question was concerned. Therefore he prayed that the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT be restricted as above. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6, Sri Siddappa supported the impugned judgment and award. 8/- was paid by the respondent 1-owner covering wider liability insofar as the driver of the vehicle in question was concerned. Therefore he prayed that the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT be restricted as above. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6, Sri Siddappa supported the impugned judgment and award. He submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT was just and proper and therefore the same is not called for to be interfered with by this Court in the instant appeal. ( 6 ) IN the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the deceased was a coolie-loader in the tractor-trailer owned by the respondent 7 and the insurance covered under Ex. D. 1 was limited to a driver and six coolies-loaders as held by this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Hanumanthappa and Another. If that is so, I find sufficient force in the argument of Sri Rao that the MACT would have restricted the liability insofar as the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned limited to what is awardable under Section 4 read with Schedule IV of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923. With reference to the above submissions made, I have also cross-checked how much liability of the appellant-Insurance Company could be. As I see, the liability that could be fastened by the MACT was only limited to Rs. 47,424/- together with interest at 6% p. a. and as against that, the MACT had fastened the entire liability as against the award of Rs. 65,000/- together with interest at 9% p. a. on the appellant-Insurance Company. It therefore appears to me that the MACT had faltered in fastening the entire liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. ( 7 ) IN that view of the matter, I pass the following: (i) The impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT is confirmed. (ii) The liability of the appellant-Insurance Company is, however, limited to Rs. 47,424/ together with interest at 9% p. a. as contemplated under Section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles act. (iii)-'the liability under the impugned judgment and award insofar as the liability of the respondent 7-owner is concerned, it is hereby held that he is liable to compensate the respondents 1 to 6 to an extent of Rs. 17,576/- (Rs. 65,000/- minus Rs. (iii)-'the liability under the impugned judgment and award insofar as the liability of the respondent 7-owner is concerned, it is hereby held that he is liable to compensate the respondents 1 to 6 to an extent of Rs. 17,576/- (Rs. 65,000/- minus Rs. 47,4247-) together with interest at 9% p. a. payable to the respondents 1 to 6. ( 8 ) THE appellant-Insurance Company and the respondent 7 are hereby directed to deposit the respective sums as above together with interest at 9% p. a. within a period of 8 weeks after giving deduction for whatever they have paid either before this Court or before the MACT subsequent to the passing of the impugned award. ( 9 ) THE appeal therefore succeeds in part and accordingly allowed in part. No cost.