S. S. JHA, A. K. GOHIL, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the insurance company praying therein that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Insurance company has also challenged the quantum of compensation contending that the compensation is on higher side. On the contrary, respondent Nos. 3 to 7 the claimants have filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for respondents contended that the insurance company is jointly and severally liable with the owner and driver of the vehicle to pay the compensation. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the insurance company submitted that deceased Ramsanehee was a gratuitous passenger in the truck which is a transport carrier, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. He placed reliance on Apex court decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma, 2004 acj 1909 (SC ). It is submitted that since the deceased was travelling in a truck, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as Motor Vehicles act does not permit carrying passenger in a goods carrier. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the claimants submitted that as per terms of the insurance policy the insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Counsel for the claimants has invited attention of the court to the policy wherein additional premium of Rs. 45 has been paid by the owner for labourers who are involved in loading and unloading of the goods. Premium has been paid for covering IMT 17 which relates to legal liability of the insurance company to the persons employed in connection with operation and/or maintaining and/or loading and unloading in a motor vehicle. In the evidence, it is mentioned that the deceased was engaged on the vehicle for loading and unloading. As such, insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner and driver of the vehicle. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the insurance company has submitted that the owner has filed his written statement and in the written statement he has denied that the deceased was working as labourer for loading/unloading of goods. ( 6 ) CLAIMANTS' witness Vimla, AW 1, has categorically stated that the deceased was engaged in the loading and unloading of goods from the truck. There is no effective cross-examination on this point. ( 6 ) CLAIMANTS' witness Vimla, AW 1, has categorically stated that the deceased was engaged in the loading and unloading of goods from the truck. There is no effective cross-examination on this point. On the contrary, the owner of the vehicle has not entered the witness-box to prove his contention. Therefore, we hold that the Claims tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the deceased was involved in loading and unloading of goods in a goods carriage. In these circumstances, he cannot be termed as gratuitous passenger and the insurance company as per condition of the policy is liable to indemnify the owner and driver of the vehicle. Contention of the insurance company is not accepted that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner and driver of the vehicle. ( 7 ) AS regards quantum of compensation is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the income of the deceased has been calculated on higher side and compensation of Rs. 3,50,000 is on the higher side. The deceased was 35 years of age and his income is determined at Rs. 2,225 per month and instead of determining the dependency of the claimants at 1/3rd of the income of the deceased, the Claims Tribunal has determined the dependency at rs. 20,028 per year. The counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that the dependency is on the higher side. He submitted that the dependency could not have been more than Rs. 14,000 per annum. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, counsel for the claimants submitted that the claimant has categorically deposed that income of the deceased was Rs. 200-250 per day and considering that evidence, compensation is on the lower side. It is further contended by the counsel for the claimants that the claims Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective and he prayed for enhancement of compensation. ( 9 ) WE have perused the pleadings and the evidence on record. Vimla, AW 1, has deposed that the deceased was earning rs. 200-250 per day from labour. In her cross-examination she has stated that for unloading one truck, Rs. 150 were paid and her husband used to unload two trucks per day and Rs. 250 were paid to him. Vimla, AW 1, has deposed that the deceased was earning rs. 200-250 per day from labour. In her cross-examination she has stated that for unloading one truck, Rs. 150 were paid and her husband used to unload two trucks per day and Rs. 250 were paid to him. She admitted that her husband along with four other labourers used to unload the truck and the amount was distributed equally among all the labourers. It is also admitted that two trucks were unloaded in a day and from unloading two trucks an amount of rs. 300 received was distributed amongst four persons. Thus, income of her husband comes to Rs. 75 per day. Considering the facts of the case, the Claims Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at rs. 75 per day and determined the compensation. Even assuming that the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 75 per day and treating it to be Rs. 100 per day, then also amount of the compensation of rs. 3,50,000 awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper because a labourer does not get work every day and he gets work at least for 25 days in a month on an average basis. Therefore, even if the monthly income of deceased is taken at Rs. 2,500, i. e. , Rs. 30,000 per annum, then also after deducting 1/3rd amount which could have been spent by the deceased upon himself, the dependency of the claimants comes to rs. 20,000 per annum and on applying the multiplier of 16, amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,20,000. Hence, the determination of compensation at Rs. 3,50,000 by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and no interference is warranted with the quantum of compensation. When award was passed by the Tribunal it has awarded the interest as per bank rate on the date of award. Therefore, no interference is warranted on the rate of interest. ( 10 ) IN the result, the appeal as well as cross-objection are dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .