JUDGMENT : G.M. Akbar, J. Civil miscellaneous appeals filed against the fair and decretal order dated 21.6.2011 in M.C.O.P. Nos.111, 112, 113 and 114 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge/Special Court for Essential Commodities Act), Thanjavur. 2. The liability of the insurance company is denied on the ground that deceased and the injured, who were claimed to Is the loading and unloading coolies in a goods vehicle and who travelled on the Body of the lorry, which was carrying jalli (small stones), were not covered under the policy and hence, there was a violation of policy condition. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Sasikala, Annalakshmi, Rajathi and Banumathi were engaged as coolies by the respondent No. 1 in his lorry bearing registration No. TN 49-Z 3463. On 11.4.2009, they had loaded bricks, jalli and other construction materials in the said lorry and were proceeding to the construction site in the above vehicle. Since the above said women coolies and men seated themselves on the top of the goods loaded in the lorry, when the lorry capsized three women died and the said Banumathi sustained grievous injuries. 4. The dependants of the deceased and the injured filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur. Appellant insurance company resisted the claims on the ground that as there is clear violation of policy condition and there is prohibition of persons travelling on the top of the goods carriage, the insurance company has to be exonerated. 5. The Tribunal found that the driver of the lorry was negligent and proceeded to hold that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and awarded various amounts as compensation for the deceased and the injured. Challenging the same, the insurance company is before this court. 6. Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel for the insurance company, submitted that no person is permitted to travel on the top of the goods being transported by the vehicle and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be held liable. He also submitted that even the owner, who travels along with the goods, is permitted to travel only in the cabin and, therefore, coolies, who were travelling on the top of the goods being transported, are not covered for compensation. Learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in National Insurance Co. He also submitted that even the owner, who travels along with the goods, is permitted to travel only in the cabin and, therefore, coolies, who were travelling on the top of the goods being transported, are not covered for compensation. Learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC) and Royal Sundaram Alliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. P. Ayyakannu, 2012 (1) TN MAC 89 (DB). 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants submitted that when the coolies are covered under the policy, the insurance company cannot disown its liability. 8. Heard and perused the materials available on record. 9. The admitted fact is that the deceased and the injured were travelling along with the load in a goods carrier which happened to be the construction material such as bricks and jalli. They had loaded such materials and were travelling only to unload them at the destination. Therefore, they have to be considered as coolies. There is not an iota of evidence to show that they were travelling as passengers to go from one place to another in a goods carrier. 10. Now the question is whether the coolies are covered under the policy and the insurance company is liable when there is a prohibition for the persons to travel atop the goods being transported. 11. It is well settled that even the owner, who travels along with the goods, is expected to travel only in the cabin and not on the top of the goods. 12. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cholleti Bharatamma, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the death of the passengers travelling in a goods carrier and after analysing the principles laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (SC) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), held as follows: "(17) It is now well settled that the owner of the goods means only the person who travels in the cabin of the vehicle. (18) In this case, the High Court had proceeded on the basis that they were gratuitous passengers. The admitted plea of the respondents themselves was that the deceased had boarded the lorry and paid an amount of Rs. (18) In this case, the High Court had proceeded on the basis that they were gratuitous passengers. The admitted plea of the respondents themselves was that the deceased had boarded the lorry and paid an amount of Rs. 20 as transport charges. It has not been proved that the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the driver or the cleaner as the owner of the goods. Travelling with the goods itself does not entitle anyone to protection under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act." 13. In Royal Sundaram Alliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. P. Ayyakannu, 2012 (1) TN MAC 89 (DB), the Division Bench of this court considered a case of three claimants, who travelled along with the goods. The Division Bench considered rule 236 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which provides that no person shall be carried in the cabin of a goods carnage beyond the number for which there is seating accommodation and further held thus: "(10) Rule 236 provides that no person shall be carried in the cabin of goods carriage beyond the number for which there is a seating accommodation. In the para extracted above from Anjana Shyams case, 2007 ACJ 2129 (SC), the Supreme Court held that section 149 cannot be understood as imposing a liability on the insurer to make payment even in respect of those who have been loaded into the vehicle against the terms of the permit and against the terms of the condition of registration of the vehicle and that though the insurer is bound to cover the third party risks in respect of passengers, the risks can only be understood to mean risks of passengers authorised or permitted to be carried in the said vehicle. We are bound by this judgment and, therefore, we hold that the insurer is liable to indemnify the liability only with regard to Ayyakannu, who sat in the cabin of the vehicle and along with the driver and whose liability alone the insurer was bound to cover." 14. However, the facts before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cholleti Bharatammas case, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC), cited above is a case of a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, wherein the Apex Court held that the owner of the goods means only the person, who travels in a cabin of a goods vehicle. However, the facts before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cholleti Bharatammas case, 2008 ACJ 268 (SC), cited above is a case of a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, wherein the Apex Court held that the owner of the goods means only the person, who travels in a cabin of a goods vehicle. Further under rule 236, the seating capacity of the cabin is to be declared. 15. No person can travel more than the capacity of the vehicle. We have no quarrel with the principles laid down on the above; said decisions. Flow ever, the above said F decisions relate to passengers travelling f along with the goods not in the cabin but on the top of the goods. 16. The present case relates to travelling of three coolies on the top of the construction materials which were transported in a goods vehicle. 17. Exh. R1 is the insurance policy The premium paid is as under: Schedule of Premium A: OD-Basic Surcharge for G.V.W. Rs.3,533.40 Rs.1,134.00 B.T.P. Basic Compulsory PA to owner-cum-driver Rs.6,090.00 Rs.100.00 NCB 20 per cent (-) Rs.933.48 Amount Rs. 2,00,000 WC to employee & N.F.P.P1 Rs.200.00 Rs.75.00 18. Therefore, there is a third party basic premium to cover the third party insurance. There is compulsory personal accident premium to cover the owner-cum-driver. There is a WC premium paid to cover eight employees. There is a premium paid for one non-fare paying passenger. If eight employees are covered, this court fails to understand where these eight employees will travel when they were engaged to load and unload the goods. 19. No doubt, the seating capacity of the cabin is to be restricted and declared which may allow one driver, a cleaner and a non-fare paying passenger. When premium is paid to cover eight employees, they cannot be treated as third parties and they also cannot be treated as non-fare paying passengers. They are the employees covered under the policy. Having collected the premium, the insurance company cannot come forward with a plea that they were not permitted to travel in the lorry while loading and unloading of the goods. The possible defence the insurance company could have taken is that they are the employees covered under the Workmens Compensation Act, but that was not the plea taken by the insurance company. 20. The possible defence the insurance company could have taken is that they are the employees covered under the Workmens Compensation Act, but that was not the plea taken by the insurance company. 20. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company cannot be accepted and hence, this court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also just and reasonable and see no reason to interfere. 21. In fine, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not already deposited. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.