JUDGMENT:- 1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The first respondent has filed W.C.No.367 of 2000 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered while he was working as loadman in the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-B-0819 on 07.10.1999. He suffered multiple injuries on 07.10.1999 while he was involved in the loading of stones in stone quarry. He was admitted in the hospital and he took treatment. Those details are not necessary to decide the issue in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, since the accident and injuries sustained by the first respondent /claimant, are not in dispute. 2. Before filing W.C.No.367 of 2000, the claimant sent notice to the second respondent-M/s.Vasu Crushers demanding compensation. M/s.Vasu Crushers did not send any reply. Thereafter he filed W.C. No.367 of 2000 as stated above. Thereafter, he impleaded one Balamurugan, as the second respondent in the W.C. According to him, he worked in the lorry owned by the said Balamurugan and even after the said lorry was transferred to M/s.Vasu Crushers, he continued to get employment in M/s.Vasu Crushers. Since the said Balamurugan died, the legal heirs of Balamurugan were impleaded as respondents 3 to 5 in the W.C. (i) M/s.Vasu Crushers did not file counter statement before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. He also did not send any reply to the Lawyer's notice. (ii) Before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the injured person got examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Ex.C1 – Medical Sheet was received from the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. (iii) One Mahendran was examined on behalf of the second respondent herein. He claimed that he was not the owner of the lorry which involved in the accident. He stated that he purchased the lorry on 04.01.2000 from Balamurugan. As per Form No.29 marked as Ex.C2, the transfer took place on 04.01.2000. He stated that he was not aware of the first respondent/claimant. He did not choose to produce the R.C. Book. 3. According to the first respondent / claimant, he was a loadman in the lorry even after the ownership of the lorry was transferred to the second respondent herein. As a loadman, he was not aware of the change of ownership as he continued to carry out his work as a loadman, particularly carrying stones in quarries. 4. 3. According to the first respondent / claimant, he was a loadman in the lorry even after the ownership of the lorry was transferred to the second respondent herein. As a loadman, he was not aware of the change of ownership as he continued to carry out his work as a loadman, particularly carrying stones in quarries. 4. R.W.1-Mahendran admitted that though he was in possession of the R.C. Book, he did not choose to produce the same. He also stated that the salaries are disbursed to the loadmen but he did not produce those details. 5. The Insurance Company also examined its official, who stated that the lorry was owned by one Balamurugan as on the date of accident, i.e., as on 07.10.1999 and the insurance policy was also issued in the name of Balamurugan, and since as on 07.10.1999 the second respondent did not buy the lorry and the insurance policy also did not stand in the name of the second respondent, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 6. The Commissioner rejected the contentions and recorded a factual finding that the workman was attached with the lorry as a loadman and he was not aware of the purchase of lorry by various persons, and that since there was a valid insurance policy at the relevant point of time, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, by order dated 15.07.2004, directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.92,343/- as compensation to the claimant, towards loss of earning capacity at 37%. 7. The appellant has filed this appeal. The only question of law that is raised before me at the time of argument is that the first respondent was not employed under the second respondent-M/s.Vasu Crushers at the time of accident, as M/s.Vasu Crushers had bought the vehicle only on 04.01.2000. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and the Commissioner has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. 8. I have perused the original records. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in the hospital and he took treatment. The manner of accident was recorded in the Accident Register of the hospital. It is in a printed form. 8. I have perused the original records. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in the hospital and he took treatment. The manner of accident was recorded in the Accident Register of the hospital. It is in a printed form. In the column against the “nature of injury and treatment” it is stated as follows: “Alleged to have sustained injury to the left leg by fall of heavy stone while loading the stones in a lorry at about 11.a.m., on 07.10.1999 at “TAMIL”. 9. One can appreciate the stand taken by the Insurance Company, if the claimant did not implead Mr.Balamurugan. The claimant impleaded Balamurugan and on his death, the legal heirs of Balamurugan were also impleaded. Balamurugan owned the lorry as on 07.10.1999. As per the insurance policy that was marked before the Commissioner, the insurance policy was in operation from 29.07.1999 to 28.07.2000. It is true that as per Form-29, under Rule 55(1) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, the transfer of lorry took place from Balamurugan to M/s.Vasu Crushers. But the fact is that the workman gave categorical evidence during the chief examination that both M/s.Vasu Crushers and Balamurugan used to pay salaries for the loadmen working in the lorry. The following passage in the chief examination of the claimant is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 10. During the cross-examination, the claimant has categorically denied the stand that he did not work under Balamurugan and did not receive the salary under Balamurugan. The following passage in the cross-examination is extracted: “TAMIL” 11. Whether the lorry was owned by Balamurugan or not, it was used by the first respondent-M/s. Vasu Crushers. As far as the loadman is concerned, he is not aware as to in whose name the lorry stands and in whose name the insurance policy stands. In fact, the Commissioner has dealt with the matter in detail and observed as follows: “Both from the depositions as well as in the admission of opposite parties it is clear that the applicant was employed in the lorry TN59B/0819 which was bearing the name 'Thangapandi'. The impugned lorry had been transferred from one to another party many times as per the document and evidence furnished by the RTO Authorities. From this it is clear that the applicant had been in employment of this particular lorry for fairly a long period of time. The impugned lorry had been transferred from one to another party many times as per the document and evidence furnished by the RTO Authorities. From this it is clear that the applicant had been in employment of this particular lorry for fairly a long period of time. As the document Ex.C3 shows that there have been frequent changes and transfer of ownership and in such event an illiterate individual like the applicant who was employed as a loadman is not expected to have a fair knowledge of transfer of ownership as it will be beyond his purview. As per the deposition of the applicant it is clear that the vehicle was intended for loading in the crusher unit owned by the 1st respondent.” 12. The aforesaid conclusion was reached by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation based on Letter No.70197/A2/2003 dated 30.12.2003 written by the Regional Transport Officer, Madurai North to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, K.K.Nagar, Madurai, furnishing the particulars, when he was asked to produce the relevant records relating to change of ownership of the concerned lorry. The lorry was transferred to so many persons as per the said records. Ex.C3-series make it clear that there were so many transfers of ownership of the said lorry. But it seems that the workman continued as loadman and there was valid insurance policy also. 13. Therefore, due to the existence of insurance policy, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot deny payment of compensation, particularly when the coverage is not in dispute. Further, as noted above, the second respondent-M/s.Vasu Crushers did not choose to file counter statement and also did not choose to send a reply to the notice sent by the workman through the Lawyer, claiming compensation. But the owner of M/s.Vasu Crushers gave evidence, and during the cross-examination, he admitted that he did not produce the R.C. Book which would indicate about the change of ownership. Hence, the workman had to take out summons to the office of the R.T.O., to produce the records and accordingly records were produced and the same were marked as Ex.C3 series, as stated above. Further, he did not produce the particulars of wages paid. Therefore, it is clear that Balamurugan and M/s.Vasu Crushers were jointly operating the lorry and it was used for movement of the stones. In that process, the claimant was employed for loading the stones. Further, he did not produce the particulars of wages paid. Therefore, it is clear that Balamurugan and M/s.Vasu Crushers were jointly operating the lorry and it was used for movement of the stones. In that process, the claimant was employed for loading the stones. The statement recorded in the Accident Register as on 07.10.1999 by the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai also makes it clear that the workman got injured while loading the stones in the lorry. In fact, since the second respondent did not file counter statement, i.e., pleadings, his oral evidence could have no effect. 14. In view of the factual findings rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, and particularly taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation that has already been deposited by the appellant Insurance Company.