JUDGMENT:- 1. The first respondent in the appeal is the claimant. He was working as a loadman in the tractor and trailer owned by the second respondent. The second respondent owned both the tractor and the trailer. The tractor as well as the trailer were insured with the appellant Insurance Company. 2. As per the policy conditions of the trailer, 5 loadmen are covered. On 27.06.2004, the first respondent travelled along with others in the tractor cum trailer for loading sugarcane in the field of one Shanmugam. Since sufficient workmen were not available, the first respondent came to Dindigul Palani Main Road to bring some more loadmen. At that time, the tractor and trailer got involved in the accident and he suffered injuries. 3. The accident and the injuries suffered by the first respondent are not disputed. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul by the impugned order, directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.289,940/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The Commissioner fixed 65% as the percentage of disability based on the evidence of the doctor who was examined as P.W.2. This appeal is filed against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, raising the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the first respondent / petitioner is entitled to any compensation when admittedly the injured has travelled in the mudguard of the tractor, which is a clear violation of policy condition? (b) Whether the ignoring and overlooking of the evidence of R.W.1 ie., Regional Transport Officer whose evidence throw light on the fixation of the liability would vitiate the order of the learned Commissioner? 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Commissioner has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company, when the first respondent travelled on the mudguard of the tractor and not in the trailer. It is the only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. That is, he has confined the appeal to the first question of law alone. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant has brought to my notice the relevant passage in the order of the Commissioner, wherein he has categorically stated that the claimant travelled in the trailer along with the driver to bring loadmen for the work. While so, the accident took place. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant has brought to my notice the relevant passage in the order of the Commissioner, wherein he has categorically stated that the claimant travelled in the trailer along with the driver to bring loadmen for the work. While so, the accident took place. He further submitted that it was a factual finding and this Court need not interfere with the same. 7. I have considered the above submissions. 8. According to the appellant, the claimant was travelling in the tractor at the time of accident. On the other hand, it is the case of the claimant that he was travelling in the trailer. The following passage in the order is relevant in this regard: “TAMIL” 9. The authority has recorded a factual finding that the claimant was working as loadman and he was traveling in the trailer and at that time the accident took place and he suffered injuries. It is not in dispute that as per the Insurance Policy taken for the trailer, five persons are covered. Therefore, the contention of the Insurance Company to deny the liability has no basis. In my considered view, it is a factual finding rendered by the authority and no question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, this appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. 10. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount already deposited by the appellant Insurance Company.