Judgment :- 1. The Insurance Company has filed the Appeal against the award dated 26.10.2004 made in W.C. No.49 of 2002 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Claim Petition are that on 19.9.2001 at 7.30 a.m., the deceased was accompanying his co-worker to repair the punctured type in a shop at Bye-pass road, Makkan, Vellore. At the time of inflating the tyre due to thrush of air the tyre busted and the disc of the wheel hit against the deceased, who received fatal injuries and later he died in the hospital. Therefore, the death of the deceased, the claimants filed Claim Petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai. 3. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on behalf of the Claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7, were marked. On behalf of the Respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.3,79,120/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the deceased is a sanitary worker under the Vellore Municipality and the insurance coverage for the vehicle Power Tiller is for only one person and not for the deceased. Hence, the award passed against the Insurance Company is liable to be set aside and the Appeal has to be allowed. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that the award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is quite reasonable and hence the order has to be confirmed. 7. Heard both sides. 8. It is admitted that the vehicle is a Power Tiller and it is also admitted that only one person has been insured in respect of the power tiller. It is not in dispute that on 19.9.2001 at 7.30 a.m. the deceased Sampath was working under the Commissioner of Municipality as Sanitary Worker. Further, it is not in dispute that the vehicle Power Tiller got punctured and it was attended by the Sanitary Worker the deceased and when he had taken the tyre to the vulcanizing shop along with the co-worker where the misfortune had happened. 9. Further, it is not in dispute that the vehicle Power Tiller got punctured and it was attended by the Sanitary Worker the deceased and when he had taken the tyre to the vulcanizing shop along with the co-worker where the misfortune had happened. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant relying on the judgment in RamshraySingh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 2004 (2) TN MAC 43 (SC) contended that the deceased was not a driver and hence, the claim is not sustainable. In the said case even though the vehicle has been insured for 13+1, yet the Khalasi who sustained injury due to the accident was neither covered under the Policy nor engaged in the capacity of a driver and hence the Supreme Court held that the claim against Insurance Company is unsustainable. In the case on hand, the insurance has been obtained only for one person. The Power Tiller cannot be used by any other method except the pulling method. Further, it is not necessary that the puller must possess driving licence. It is seen from the evidence that the deceased was attending the vulcanizing work of the deflated tyre which was removed from the vehicle. Therefore, I am of the view that the accident has occurred during the course of the employment and the award passed against the Insurance Company is sustainable and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs.