Judgment 1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The second respondent owned a minidor van. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The first respondent was employed by the second respondent. 2. According to the first respondent, he was a loadman employed by the second respondent in the said minidor van. On 13.10.2004, the minidor van involved in the accident resulting in grievous injuries to the first respondent. The first respondent suffered 65% disability. The first respondent filed MCOP No.93 of 2005 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Sivakasi, claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. After examining the witnesses on both sides and after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the Tribunal passed the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2009 granting a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. Challenging the same, the appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two grounds. The first ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the first respondent was not a loadman employed by the second respondent and therefore, he was not covered by the package policy. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the first respondent was an employee, not all the employees of the second respondent are covered by the policy and only the drivers, cleaners or coolies are covered by the policy and the first respondent is neither a driver nor a cleaner or coolie. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, he is not entitled for any compensation. 4. The second contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle was not driven by Mr.Karthikeyapandi, but it was driven by one Mr.Subbarayan and the said Mr.Subbarayan was also injured, however, he did not choose to prefer any claim. The accident register of Mr.Subbarayan, which has been marked as Ex.X4, has been relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant to support his contention. While the said Mr.Subbarayan did not possess valid driving license, the said Mr.Karthikeyapandi possessed valid driving license. Hence, it was claimed as if Mr.Karthikeyapandi drove the vehicle. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that coolies or cleaners are also the employees. Furthermore, the first respondent has categorically deposed before the Tribunal that he was a loadman during the cross-examination by the Insurance Company. Hence, it was claimed as if Mr.Karthikeyapandi drove the vehicle. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent has submitted that coolies or cleaners are also the employees. Furthermore, the first respondent has categorically deposed before the Tribunal that he was a loadman during the cross-examination by the Insurance Company. With regard to the second contention, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the Tribunal has considered the issue in detail and rejected the contentions of the appellant – Insurance Company. 6. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the first respondent deposed as follows, during the cross-examination: (“Tamil”) The above said extract from the cross-examination of the first respondent makes it clear that he is also covered by the policy issued by the appellant. A loadman is nothing but a coolie. Hence, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The learned counsel for the first respondent /claimant has brought to my notice paragraph-8 as well as paragraph-9 of the order of the Tribunal. I find that the Tribunal considered the matter in detail and rejected the contention of the Insurance Company. The two documents, viz. First Information Report as well as the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report were relied on by the Tribunal and held that the driver of the vehicle was only Mr.Karthikeyapandi. The Doctor who maintained the Accident Register was also examined. The claimant deposed that it was driven by Mr.Karthikeyapandi. Thereafter the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle was driven by the said Karthikeyapandi. Furthermore, the said Subbarayan did not also make any claim. 8. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the award and accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, and the first respondent / claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the Insurance Company. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Note to the Registry: Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the claimant.