JUDGMENT Sreedhar Rao, .J All the three appeals arise out of the same accident resulting in death of two workmen and personal injuries to one. The dependents of the deceased workmen and the injured workman had filed petitions under W.C. Act. The insurer has filed the above appeals. 2. The material facts discloses that the deceased workmen and injured workman were quarrying the sand for the purpose of loading the lorry In the process of quarrying, there was a landslide, the heap of sand fell causing personal injury to one and death of two workmen. The W.C. Commissioner has found that the accident occurred in the course of and out of employment and in the use of motor vehicle. The W.C. Commissioner has assessed the wages of the deceased at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. 3. The insurer has filed all the above appeals to avoid liability on the ground that the risk of the workmen in question is not covered under the policy and also that the income assessed at Rs.4,000/- is on higher scale in the absence of the credible proof of income adduced by the claimants. 4. The following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration: (i) In the context of fact stated above, whether the risk of deceased workmen is covered under the insurance policy issued by the appellant. (ii) Whether the W.C. Commissioner is justified in assessing the income of the workmen at Rs,4,000/- per month in the absence of credible proof? 5. Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, Counsel for the appellant has referred to the provision of Scc.14 7 proviso-I. The relevant provision of Sec.147 proviso-1 is extracted here under: Provided that a policy shall not be required n (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ( 8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee, - (a) ... ... ... ............................. (b) ....................................... (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle; 6. ... ... ............................. (b) ....................................... (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle; 6. Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy, Counsel strenuously contended that the insurer is liable only in respect of death or bodily injury caused to the employee, if it is a goods carriage' being carried in the vehicle'. In other words the workman should be inmate of the vehicle at the time of accident to attract liability under the policy. In the instant case, the deceased workmen are obviously were not the inmates of the vehicle at the time of accident. The deceased workmen were far away from the lorry, and were quarrying the sand. Hence the insurer does not incur any statutory liability and the policy does not cover the risk of the workmen in question. 7. Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy further contended that in the absence of credible proof of income, the minimum wages prescribed should be taken. The minimum wages prescribed for the relevant period is Rs.2,950/- per month for the nature of work in question. 8. The gist of the proviso to Sec.147(1) mandates that the risk of the employee in a goods carriage should be statutorily covered. The expression 'being carried in the vehicle' need riot be construed rigidly and strictly, if done, it would defeat the very object and purpose of legislative welfare policy. In the case of goods vehicle the loading and unloading of goods is an integral part of the transport activity. The contention that insurer would become liable only when the' employee sustains death/injury while travelling in the vehicle would be an absurd proposition. Since the loading and unloading forms an integral and dominant purpose of the transport activity, the risk of the workmen attending to loading and unloading should not be excluded by rigid interpretation. In that view, we hold that the expression 'being carried in the vehicle' would also include the activity of loading and unloading and not necessarily restricted to the situations where the workmen is an inmate of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, the accident in question is in the course of and out of employment and in the use of motor vehicle. The insurer cannot avoid the liability. 9. With regard to income, the claimants have not produced credible proof of the actual income. Therefore, minimum wages of Rs.2,950/- per month to be taken. Hence, the accident in question is in the course of and out of employment and in the use of motor vehicle. The insurer cannot avoid the liability. 9. With regard to income, the claimants have not produced credible proof of the actual income. Therefore, minimum wages of Rs.2,950/- per month to be taken. 50% to be deducted. The recoknable wages would be 50% of wage, which would be Rs.1475/-. The relevant factor in MFA 6048/07 is 226.38. Therefore, the claimants in MFA No. 6048/07 would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,33.910.50/- (Rs.1475 x 226.38). 10. The wages of the deceased workman in MFA No. 6850/07 would be Rs.1475/-. The relevant factor is 203.85. Therefore, the claimants in MFA No. 6850/07 would be entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,00,678.75/- (Rs.1475 x 203.85). 11. In MFA No. 6851/07 the wages of the workman to be considered at Rs.14 75/-. The relevant factor is 216.71. The medical opinion discloses that workmen sustained 40% of the disability. Therefore, the claimant in MFA 6851/07 is entitled to Rs. 1,27.976.90/(Rs.l,475 x 216.91 x 40/100). 12. On the compensation awarded, the interest payable is 12% p.a., one month after the accident till payment. The compensation awarded shall be payable to the claimants from the amount in deposit. Excess amount found if any after disbursement shall be refunded to the appellant.