Judgment :- The appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 10.6.1996 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.639 of 1992, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Cuddalore, has allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.84,200/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum, for the death of one Arumugam, the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent and son of the respondents 4 and 5. 2. According to the claimants in the claim petition viz., respondents 1 and 2, on 23.6.1992, at about 4.00 p.m., when the deceased Arumugam was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No.MDA 8405, which was towed with trailors bearing Registration Nos.MDF 7085 and TNF 7540, as a loadman, the driver of the said tractor drove the vehicle rashly and negligently at a high speed by ignoring the road condition, whereby the loadman was thrown out of the tractor, in which he was seated on the manual road and due to the over joining of the trailor, by sudden falling of the tractor in a deep ditch, the tractor ran over the deceased. Immediately after the accident, the said Arumugam was taken to the Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore for treatment, but inspite of the best treatment offered at the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The claimants also stated in the claim petition that the deceased Arumugam was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs.40/- per day as a coolie. 3. The owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company were the respondents before the Tribunal. The tribunal, after inquiry, concluded that the vehicle bearing Registration No.MDT-8405 involved in this case was driven in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident, resulting in the death of Arumugam. 4. The appellant/insurance company resisted the claim petition, disputing the age, occupation and income of the deceased. The insurance company had also stated that the vehicle was not covered under the insurance policy at all and that the driver of the vehicle was not in possession of a valid licence at the time of the accident, and hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company had also stated that the vehicle was not covered under the insurance policy at all and that the driver of the vehicle was not in possession of a valid licence at the time of the accident, and hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. The insurance company laid their main thrust on the contention that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger and hence in any event the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. 5. However, rejecting the said contentions, the tribunal imposed the liability on the insurance company, directing them to pay the compensation of Rs.84,200/- along with interest at 12% per annum to the claimants. It is this order of the tribunal is in challenge before us in the present appeal. 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is that since the deceased was only a load man travelling as an unauthorised passenger, he is a stranger to the insurance policy and therefore the insurance company is not at all liable to pay the compensation and it is only the owner of the vehicle viz., the third respondent herein, is liable to pay the compensation, as the accident is not covered under the impugned policy, which was entered into between the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, invited our attention to clause 4 of the General Exceptions to the policy in question, marked as Ex.B1, which reads as follows. "4. Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirement of Motor Vehicles Act, the company shall not be liable in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person (other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment) being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Motor Vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which any claim arises." (emphasis supplied) 8. Since the appellant insurance company is not disputing the fact that the deceased was a loadman engaged by the third respondent/owner of the vehicle, and the accident took place during the course of his employment, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/owner of the vehicle, in our considered opinion, the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the compensation for the death of the deceased Arumugam in view of the clause 4 of the General Exceptions to the policy, whereunder the liability of the insurance company is not excluded with reference to the death or bodily injury of any person, who is a passenger or govern under the contract of employment. Hence, finding no reasons to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal dated 10.06.1996 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.639 of 1992, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.