JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. This appeal, by the Insurance Company, is directed against the direction issued vide judgment and award dated 12th October, 2009 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MAC Case No. 21/2008, to pay the compensation of Rs. 4,89,500/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the application till the date of realization, awarded for the death of the claimant/Respondent No. 1's husband in a motor accident occurred on 17th October, 2007, where the deceased was traveling as detailed by the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-01/C-2745. 2. The aforesaid MAC case was registered on the basis of the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 claiming compensation for the death of her husband in the said motor accident occurred on 17th October, 2010. While the Insurance Company, who was the opposite party No. 1 contested the proceeding before the learned Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, the Respondent No. 2 herein, did not contest the said proceeding despite service of notice and hence the proceeding was decided ex-parte against him. 3. The claimant/Respondent No. 1 in support of her claim examined herself and proved a number of documents including the contract of insurance between the Appellant/Insurance Company and the Respondent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Insurance Company also examined 1 (one) witness, who deposed relating to the coverage of the risk of the owner of the vehicle under the policy issued, which was marked as Exhibit-C/5. 4. The learned Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidences on record, as adduced by the parties, vide judgment dated 12th October, 2009 awarded a sum of Rs.4,89,500/- as compensation, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the application till the date of realization and has directed the Appellant/Insurance Company to satisfy the said award in view of the contract of insurance. Hence the present appeal by the Insurance Company mainly contending that the contract of insurance does not cover the risk of the owner of the vehicle in respect of the person other than the driver or the cleaner or conductor or person employed for loading and/or unloading in the vehicle in question and as the deceased do not come within the said categories of persons. 5. I have heard Mr. 5. I have heard Mr. M. Guite, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. H. Lalrinthanga, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mrs. H. Dawngliani, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. 6. Referring to IMT 39 of the contract of insurance between the Appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle, the Respondent No. 2, Mr. Guite, learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the owner of the vehicle by paying extra premium has covered the risk of the driver, cleaner, conductor and person employed in loading and unloading in the vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-01/C-2745 and as the deceased was neither engaged as driver nor cleaner or conductor or engaged in loading or unloading in the said vehicle, which, according to the learned Counsel, is apparent from the evidence of the claimant herself, the learned Tribunal ought not to have directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award by holding that there is a contract of insurance between the Appellant/Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award may be set aside. 7. Mr. Lalrinthanga, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, referring to the deposition of the claimant has submitted that it is apparent therefrom that though the deceased was a driver in respect of another vehicle of the Respondent No. 2, he, however, was engaged for the purpose of loading and unloading of the said vehicle on 16th and 17th October, 2007, as he was detailed by the owner for that purpose while carrying goods from Aizawl to Lunglei and from Lunglei to Aizawl again. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that since extra premium has been paid, in view of IMT 39 the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability of satisfying the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Mr. Sailo, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 supporting the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 has also submitted that since the deceased was deployed in connection with the vehicle in question for carrying the goods, the risk of the owner is covered by the insurance policy issued by the Appellant/Insurance Company, which has been proved as Exhibit-C/5. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record in MAC Case No. 21/2008. I have also perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 10. The present appeal is in a very short campus, since the only ground on which the judgment and award has been put to challenge by the Insurance Company is that the risk of the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident in respect of the deceased was not covered by IMT 39 of the contract of insurance. 11. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the deposition of the claimant/ Respondent No. 1, who examined herself in support of her claim. Though she initially took the stand that her husband was deployed as second driver of the vehicle in question of the employer/Respondent No. 2, she has, however, deposed that the deceased was deployed by the owner to travel in the vehicle for distribution of the goods carried to Lunglei and while returning therefrom, the said vehicle met with an accident on 17th October, 2007 resulting in the death of her husband. 12. It is not in dispute that the owner of the vehicle has paid extra premium covering the risk of the persons mentioned in IMT 39. By paying such extra premium, the risk of the driver, conductor, cleaner or person employed in loading or unloading of the vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-01/C-2745 has been covered. As noticed above, the claimant in her deposition has stated that the deceased was deployed by the owner of the truck, Respondent No. 2, for traveling in the said vehicle for the purpose of distribution of the goods at Lunglei and while returning from Lunglei, the accident occurred. Reading the evidence of the claimant's witness in its entirety, it can be gathered that the deceased was deployed by the owner of the vehicle for loading and unloading of goods carried to Lunglei. 13. That being the position, the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability of satisfying the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The award passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, needs no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 14. 13. That being the position, the Insurance Company cannot escape from the liability of satisfying the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The award passed by the learned Tribunal, therefore, needs no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 14. At this stage, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that the amount awarded has already been deposited by the Insurance Company with the Registry. That being the position, the Registry is directed to release the said amount to the claimant/Respondent No. 1, with interest, if any, accrued thereon, on being duly identified by the learned Counsel. 15. The Registry is directed to send down the records immediately. Appeal dismissed.