JUDGMENT : D. Hariparanthaman, J. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The third respondent is the owner of the lorry, bearing Registration No. TDJ 7989. The lorry was capsized on 20.02.2001, while it carried Tar mixed Blue Metal for laying public road. Two load men died in the accident and rest of them got injured. The legal heirs of one of the load men who died in the accident, filed M.C.O.P. No. 981 of 2002, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Dindigul, claiming a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation. The claimants are the wife and minor daughter of the deceased. The third respondent in the claim petition was the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal passed an order on 24.01.2006, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,95,000/- as compensation and the present appeal is against the said award. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that since 16 load men were carried in the lorry contrary to the policy condition, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. In any event, the learned Counsel submits that there was violation of policy condition and therefore, the appellant could be permitted to pay compensation at the first instance and thereafter, to recover the same from the lorry owner. Alternatively, it is submitted that the appellant could be given liberty to initiate proceedings against the lorry owner and Highways Department of the State Government for recovery of the compensation paid by them. 4. It is submitted that the load men were called as "Salai Paniyalargal" (Gang Mazdoors) employed for laying roads by the State Government and that therefore, the State Government is responsible to make good the loss suffered by the appellant Insurance Company. 5. The learned Counsel for the Lorry Owner/third respondent herein, submits that there was no violation of policy condition. The learned Counsel further submits that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited up to six persons as per Ex.R1. There is no prohibition for taking more load men than six and the liability alone is limited up to 6 load men. It is stated that so far only two claim petitions relating to the death of two load men were filed and no other person claimed compensation. There is no prohibition for taking more load men than six and the liability alone is limited up to 6 load men. It is stated that so far only two claim petitions relating to the death of two load men were filed and no other person claimed compensation. Hence, the appellant/Insurance Company is not correct in its submission that there was violation of policy condition. Since, there was no violation of policy condition, no question for applying the principle of pay and recover would arise. It is also submitted that the lorry was hired by the Highways Department of the State Government for carrying Tar mixed Blue Metal for laying public roads by the Government and the Mazdoors of the Highways Department handled the blue metals that were loaded in the lorry by them. Hence, it is submitted that no interference is called for in the award of the Tribunal. 6. The learned Counsel for the claimants seeks to sustain the award. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The issue that arises for consideration is that as to whether there is any violation of policy condition by the third respondent/lorry owner. To decide the same, one has to look into Ex. R1, policy issued by the appellant Insurance Company. The relevant portion from Ex. R1 is extracted hereunder: Use only for carriage of goods within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The policy does not cover: 1. Use for organised racing, pace making, reliability trials or speed testing. 2. Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicle. 3. Use for carrying passengers in the vehicles except employees (other than the driver) not exceeding 6 in number coming under the purview of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 9. The condition imposed in the policy is relating to the liability of the Insurance Company up to 6 load men. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the third respondent violated the condition by taking sixteen load men. There is no such prohibition in the policy. The policy only restricts the liability up to six load men. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the third respondent violated the condition by taking sixteen load men. There is no such prohibition in the policy. The policy only restricts the liability up to six load men. Hence, the learned Counsel for the appellant is not correct in submitting that the Tribunal had committed an error in fastening the liability on the appellant Insurance Company. 10. Since, I have already held that there is no violation of the policy condition, the application of the principle of pay and recover would not arise. As far as the request made by the learned Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company for taking independent civil proceedings against both the State Government and the lorry owner for recovery of the compensation paid by them is concerned, it is left open to the appellant Insurance Company to take any action that they wish to take, if so advised, in accordance with law. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs.