Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/National Insurance Company Limited against the order of the learned Commissioner of Workmens Compensation, Salem passed in W.C.No.151 of 2002 dated 20.12.2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,95,822/- to the claimants. 2. The short facts of the case is as follows;- The deceased Kuppusamy was working as a driver cum driller under one Ganesan/first opposite party. The heavy bore-well vehicle bearing registration No.TN45Z-0479 belongs to the first opposite party. The same was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited/second opposite party. On 20.01.2002, at about 5.00 p.m. At Pudupattiyor Thottakinaru, Namagiripet, the said deceased Kuppusamy was on duty as a driver cum driller of the said vehicle. After completing the bore-well work at the said well, while the deceased Kuppusamy was coming up from the well with the help of a rope, he got unbalanced and fell down into the well and sustained serious head injury and died on the spot. The concerned police i.e. Namagaripettai Police registered a criminal case in Crime No.43 of 2002 on an alleged offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. 3. The first applicant is the wife, the second and third applicants are minor daughter and son, the fourth and fifth applicants are the father and mother of the deceased Kuppusamy. The applicants further submitted that the said accident occurred only during the course of employment as a driver cum driller under the first opposite party. At the time of death of the deceased in the accident, he was 26 years old and his monthly income was Rs.5,000/- besides Rs.100/- batta per day. On the basis of the income, age of the deceased and dependency of applicants, the applicants have claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation against both the opposite parties as they are vigorously liable for the said accident. 4. The second respondent/National Insurance Company filed their counter statement and resisted the claim of the applicants. The second respondent does not admit employer-employee relationship between the deceased Kuppusamy as a driver cum driller and the first opposite party/the owner of the heavy bore-well vehicle bearing registration No. TN45-Z-4079. Further, the Insurance Company denied the accident of the deceased has taken place on 20.01.2002 in the said place. The Insurance Company came to know that the deceased, Kuppusamy fell down in a well belonging to his father-in-law. Further, the Insurance Company denied the accident of the deceased has taken place on 20.01.2002 in the said place. The Insurance Company came to know that the deceased, Kuppusamy fell down in a well belonging to his father-in-law. So, the applicants colluded with the first opposite party and filed this application to get a wrongful compensation from the opposite party. Further, the Insurance Company contended that as per the requirements of the policy and limits of liability under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the policy shall not be required to cover liability in respect of the death arising out of and in the course of employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. So the second opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the deceased person. The contents of the application clearly shows that the vehicle is not in use at the time the deceased sustained injuries. Further, the insurance company has contended that a drilling rig mounted on a vehicle does not become a road transport vehicle. The rig and compressor mounted on a lorry cannot be treated as road traffic vehicle. Further the insurance company denied the income and age of the deceased. The compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the applicants is on the higher side. 5. The learned Commissioner of Labour framed four issues namely; i) Whether the deceased was an employee at the time of accident under the first respondent? ii) At the time of death, what was the age and salary of deceased? iii) What is the quantum of compensation which the applicants are entitled to? iv) If so, whom it has to be paid? 6. The first applicant was examined as PW1 and five documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 namely 1) F.I.R. 2) Registration certificate of vehicle, 3) Insurance Policy, 4) Driving license of the deceased and 5) Postmortem certificate. The second respondent was not examined but Ex.R1 was marked i.e. Insurance Policy. 7. The learned Commissioner after considering the evidence of the applicants has come to a conclusion that while the deceased Kuppusamy was involved in bore-well work, the accident had happened. The same was narrated in the first information report. The second respondent was not examined but Ex.R1 was marked i.e. Insurance Policy. 7. The learned Commissioner after considering the evidence of the applicants has come to a conclusion that while the deceased Kuppusamy was involved in bore-well work, the accident had happened. The same was narrated in the first information report. As such, he has come to the conclusion, that the deceased died in the course of employment with the first respondent. Further, the Commissioner has come to a conclusion, on the strength of driving licence, that the age of deceased was 36, at the time of death. Regarding the income, the Commissioner had come to a conclusion that the income of the deceased was Rs.3,014/- per month. This was determined by him under minimum wages act. So, the Commissioner adopting a multiplier 194.64 calculated the compensation as, 50/100 X 3014 X 194.64 = Rs.2,93,322/-. Besides, for funeral expenditure, compensation granted = Rs.2,500/-. The Commissioner further came to a conclusion, on the basis of insurance policy, that the policy has been taken for the lorry with mounted rig. Further, the premium has been paid for the employees, to the insurance company for this lorry with mounted rig. Further, the accident had happened to the deceased only during the operation of the rig, when the deceased was climbing up from the well. Hence, on the basis of this finding, the Commissioner held that the Insurance Company/second respondent is liable to pay a total compensation of Rs.2,95,822/- to the applicants within 30 days from the date of the commissioners order, failing which the insurance company is liable to pay the award amount together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment of compensation. 8. Challenging the award of the Labour Commissioner, the appellant counsel contended that; i) The accident happened during drilling operations which is not connected with operation or maintenance of vehicle bearing registration No. TN45-Z0479 belonging to the first opposite party and so the Insurance Police does not cover liability for the rig mounted unit on the lorry. Further the learned Counsel for the appellant cited a decision of this Court reported in 2004(2) TNMAC 47 (National Insurance Company Limited v. Ayyadurain and Another). The learned counsel pointed out that the above case was similar to the present case. 9. Further the learned Counsel for the appellant cited a decision of this Court reported in 2004(2) TNMAC 47 (National Insurance Company Limited v. Ayyadurain and Another). The learned counsel pointed out that the above case was similar to the present case. 9. This Court, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of cases and findings of the learned Commissioner of Labour, Salem and evidence of the applicants and documentary evidence, is of the view that the award granted is just and fair. Further, this Court after going through the referred judgment submitted by the appellant, is of the view that the case referred is not similar in the instant case for the following reasons. In the present case, the insurance policy has been taken also for rig mounted lorry and premium also has been paid for the employees operating the rig mounted lorry to the insurance company. As the deceased had died only during the operation of the rig, and as he had a valid driving licence also, he comes under cover of insurance. This Court also notes that in the appeal field by the insurance company, there has been no mention about the additional premium paid for employees of the first respondent to the insurance company, which had been brought out in the order of the learned Commissioner. 10. In the result, the order of the Commissioner of Labour is just, equitable and fair. Resultingly the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the order passed in W.C.No.151 of 2002 in confirmed. The Court direct the appellant/National Insurance Company to deposit the balance of compensation amount as per conditions in the order of the Commissioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The parties are directed to bear their costs in the appeal.