ANAND BYRAREDDY, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of a common judgment and are heard and disposed of to-gether. ( 2 ) THE appellant is common, namely, the insurer who is fastened with the liability to pay the compensation. ( 3 ) THE facts briefly stated are - two coolies, who were being carried in a goods vehicle belonging to the insured, died as a result of the vehicle going out of control due to rash and negligent driving of another offending vehicle. It is the appellant's contention that the deceased and several other workers were engaged by a forest contractor to collect a particular forest produce. This was the statement made by the driver in the first information report to the police, wherein he had stated that the insured, owner of the lorry had instructed him to carry about 20 workmen said to have been engaged by a forest contractor, for the purpose of collection of forest produce. This statement was produced and marked by the claimants without dispute as to tis contents. The claimants themselves have asserted this fact, in their evidence before the Tribunal. However, in the face of the above the tribunal having fastened the liability on the appellant, the present appeals. ( 4 ) THE Counsel for the appellant would contend that there is no liability on the part of the appellant to cover the risk to a passenger in a goods vehicle. This is neither covered under the policy or in terms of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity ). ( 5 ) IN the light of the admitted fact that the workmen, including the deceased, who were being carried in the vehicle at the time of the accident, were workmen engaged by a person other than the insured owner of the vehicle, there is no liability of the insurer. The workmen were not even engaged to load or unload any goods in the vehicle but were being carried to the work spot. The Tribunal was hence totally in error in appreciating this basic question and proceeding to hold-that the appellant ought to have examined the contractor who is said to have engaged the workmen and its failure in this regard would take away its defence. The Tribunal was hence totally in error in appreciating this basic question and proceeding to hold-that the appellant ought to have examined the contractor who is said to have engaged the workmen and its failure in this regard would take away its defence. ( 6 ) THE Counsel for the claimants in these two appeals, would make a weak attempt to justify the award. ( 7 ) ON a careful perusal of the record, it is clear that there is no serious dispute that the workmen on the lorry at the time of the accident were not the workmen engaged to load or unload the goods, nor were they engaged by the insured. The Tribunal was hence in error in holding that the risk to a certain number of workmen is covered under the policy of insurance and hence, the appellant was liable. This is not tenable. The admitted circumstances that they were all workmen engaged by a person other than the insured and were being carried as passengers to their work place, did not cove any such risk. The accident however, had occurred during and in the course of employment and the claimants may have been entitled to claim compensation against the employer under the provisions of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1930 (sic 1923 ). Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that the award passed by the Tribunal in the respective appeals is bad in law and is set side. The amount in deposit is to be refunded to the appellant. ( 8 ) IT is also to be noted that the claimants have in all innocence prosecuted a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, with little thought as to the source from which the compensation would be provided. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the claimants ought not to be deprived of their just due on account of the absence of liability of the appellant. Since it may be possible for the claimants to enforce their claim against the employer of the deceased, the delay in prosecution of the same can certainly be attributed to the futile attempt in these proceedings. The claimants are at liberty to prosecute any such claim.