JUDGMENT A. SELVAM, J. Challenge in this civil miscellaneous appeal is to the award dated 5.2.2003 passed in W.C. No. 144 of 2001 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul. 2. The first respondent herein as applicant has filed W.C. No. 144 of 2001 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul praying to pass an award of Rs. 3,00,000/-, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. It is stated in the application that the applicant has served as a load-man in the lorry bearing Registration No. TAP-6819 which belongs to the first respondent. On 8.9.1997, the applicant and other load-man have been engaged on duty. The driver of the first respondent has driven the said lorry in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused accident. Due to accident, the applicant has sustained various injuries including fracture. The lorry which involved in the accident has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, the applicant has come forward with the present petition for getting compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is stated that the accident has not happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent. The applicant has travelled as a passenger and also as a friend of the driver. The driver of the lorry has tried to stop the vehicle, but before coming to halt, the applicant has jumped from the lorry and fallen down and thereby he has sustained injuries and further the first respondent has violated the conditions of policy and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the applicant. Therefore, the present application deserves dismissal. 5. In the additional counter filed on the side of the second respondent, it is stated that the first respondent has allowed the applicant and other persons to travel as passengers in the goods vehicle and thereby, violated the conditions of policy and therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant and the present application deserves dismissal. 6. On the basis of the divergent contentions raised on either side, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,19,367/- in favour of the applicant and further directed that the same should be paid by the second respondent. 6. On the basis of the divergent contentions raised on either side, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,19,367/- in favour of the applicant and further directed that the same should be paid by the second respondent. Against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) has not touched the manner and cause of accident and also not touched the quantum of compensation fixed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul and his main attack is that the first respondent in the main application is the owner of the lorry which involved in the accident and he permitted the applicant as well as other load-men to travel on the goods and thereby violated conditions of policy and under the said circumstances, the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) is not liable to pay compensation to the applicant, but the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul has erroneously fixed liability upon the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) and therefore, the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul is liable to be interfered with. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/applicant has also equally contended that on the date of accident, the applicant has served as a load-man in the lorry which involved in the accident and since the accident has happened during the course of employment and since the lorry which involved in the accident has been insured with the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition), the appellant/second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the applicant/first respondent herein and under the said circumstances, the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul is quite correct and the same does not require any interference. 9. On the basis of the divergent contentions raised on either side, the Court has to look into the following points; (a) Whether the second respondent herein (owner of the lorry) has violated the conditions of policy? (b) Whether the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) is liable to pay compensation to the applicant/first respondent herein? 10. It is an admitted fact that the accident has happened on 8.9.1997 and due to accident, the applicant has sustained various injuries including fracture. (b) Whether the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) is liable to pay compensation to the applicant/first respondent herein? 10. It is an admitted fact that the accident has happened on 8.9.1997 and due to accident, the applicant has sustained various injuries including fracture. On the side of the applicant/first respondent herein, as many as seven documents have been filed. In Exhibit P-2, Wound Certificate, it has been clearly stated that the applicant/first respondent herein has sustained injuries including fracture. Exhibit P-6 is the Disability Certificate, wherein it has been stated about the disability suffered by the applicant/first respondent herein. 11. The main attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) is that at the time of accident the applicant/first respondent herein has travelled on the backside of the lorry which contained sand and therefore, he is not entitled to get compensation from the appellant/second respondent (in the main Petition). 12. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into the First Information Report given by the applicant/first respondent herein and the same has been marked as Exhibit P-1, wherein it has been clearly stated that at the time of accident the applicant/first respondent herein and others have travelled on the backside of the lorry and that too on the sand, loaded in the lorry. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) has advanced his argument mainly on the basis of Rule 238 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the same reads as follows; “Prohibition of persons on the top of goods carriage. - No person shall be carried in goods carriage upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that such person is in danger of falling from the vehicle, and in no case shall any person be carried in a goods carriage in such a manner that any part of his person when he is in a sitting position, is at a height exceeding 300 centimetres from the surface upon which the vehicle rests.” 14. From the close reading of the provision of the said Rule, it is needless to say that no person shall be permitted to travel upon goods. From the close reading of the provision of the said Rule, it is needless to say that no person shall be permitted to travel upon goods. In the instant case, as per the First Information Report given by the applicant/first respondent herein, it is very clear that at the time of accident, the applicant and others have travelled on the backside of the lorry and that too on the sand, loaded in the lorry. Since the applicant and other persons have travelled as stated above, it is very clear that the second respondent herein (owner of the lorry) has clearly violated the conditions of policy. 15. It is an admitted fact that the lorry which involved in the accident has been insured with the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) and the concerned policy has been marked as Exhibit R-2, wherein it has been clearly stated that in the vehicle which involved in the accident only three persons can travel. In the instant case, as per the First Information Report, at the time of accident nine persons including applicant have travelled in the lorry which involved in the accident and on that ground also, the second respondent herein (owner of the lorry) has clearly violated the conditions of policy. Since the second respondent herein (owner of the lorry) has clearly violated the conditions of policy, it is very clear that the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) is not at all legally liable to pay compensation to the applicant/first respondent herein. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the following decisions; (a) in (2008) 1 SCC 423 : (2008) 1 MLJ 66, the Honourable Apex Court has held that the owner of the goods must travel only in the cabin of the vehicle and not with the goods so as to cover under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further, it has been held that the Act does not contemplate that a goods carriage shall carry a large number of passengers with a small percentage of goods as the insurance policy considerably covers the death or injuries either of the owner of the goods or his authorised representative. Further, it has been held that the Act does not contemplate that a goods carriage shall carry a large number of passengers with a small percentage of goods as the insurance policy considerably covers the death or injuries either of the owner of the goods or his authorised representative. The provisions thereof do not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, and the insurers would not be liable there for. The words “injury to any person” in Section 147(1)(b) would only mean a third party and not a passenger travelling in a goods carriage whether gratuitous or otherwise. (b) in (2004) 1 MLJ 589 : (2004) 1 TNMAC 168 (DB), the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that prohibition of persons travelling in goods carriage. Rule prohibits carrying persons in goods carriage upon goods or otherwise. Deceased one among other persons carried in goods vehicle along with paddy bags. Considering the conduct of deceased and also fact that owner and driver permitted deceased to travel in goods carriage which met with accident, the action of owner and driver is nothing but in violation of Rule. Owner and driver liable for action for breach of statutory provision. 17. In the instant case, it has already been pointed out that the policy permitted the lorry which involved in the accident only to carry three persons including driver. In the First Information Report, it has been clearly stated that at the time of accident, the applicant/first respondent herein and Others have travelled on the backside of the lorry and that too on the sand. Rule 238 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 creates an absolute prohibition of travelling on goods. Therefore, it is very clear that the second respondent herein (owner of the vehicle) has violated the conditions of policy and since he has violated the conditions of policy, it is needless to say that the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) cannot be mulcted with any punishment. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent herein/applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in (2006) 1 TN MAC 180, wherein a single Judge of this Court has held that the Insurance Policy in respect of lorry indemnifying insurer to pay compensation for six coolies, driver & cleaner. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent herein/applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in (2006) 1 TN MAC 180, wherein a single Judge of this Court has held that the Insurance Policy in respect of lorry indemnifying insurer to pay compensation for six coolies, driver & cleaner. Under the said circumstances, the insurer is liable to pay compensation and further there is no violation of conditions of terms of policy. 19. It has already been pointed out in many places that in the instant case, the second respondent herein (owner of the vehicle) has clearly violated the conditions of policy and further as per Rules 238 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, prohibition is created with regard to travel on goods. The specific case of the applicant/first respondent herein is that he and others have travelled on the sand at the time of accident. Therefore, it is very clear that the dictum given by the single Judge of this Court is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 20. Before parting with this case, the Court would like to point out that as per Rule 238 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989, no person including owner of the goods is permitted to travel on goods and if anything happened in contravention of the said Rules, the Court cannot direct the concerned Insurance Company to pay compensation to affected person. 21. In view of the foregoing narration of both the factual and legal aspects, this Court has found enormous force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition), whereas the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/first respondent herein is not having force and altogether the present civil miscellaneous appeal can be allowed in part. 22. In fine, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part without costs. The award passed in W.C. No. 144 of 2001 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul is modified as follows; The award passed against the appellant/second respondent (in the main petition) is set aside. The second respondent herein (owner of the vehicle) is directed to pay compensation to the applicant/first respondent herein as fixed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul. Appeal allowed.