JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.07.2010 in WCA No. 379/2007 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur, (hereinafter referred to as 'WCC) fastening the liability on the appellant to compensate the claimants, has filed this appeal. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a claim petition contending that the husband of the 1st claimant and father of claimants 2 and 3 one Basawaraj was working as a coolie in the tractor and trailer bearing registration No. KA-36/T-4965, T-4966 belonged to the 5th respondent herein. On 14.06.2006 while he was proceeding in the said tractor and trailer after loading the stones for construction of farm house towards the farm house of the 5th respondent, due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer by its driver i.e., 4th respondent herein, near Aragini Mara camp, the vehicle met with an accident; the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, he died. The wife and children of the deceased filed a claim petition contending that at the time of death, the deceased was aged about 30 years; he was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month; he was the sole bread earner of the family and due to the death of Basawaraj, the family has lost the bread earner. The accident occurred during the course and out of employment. Hence, sought for the compensation. 3. Though the owner and driver were served with notice, they remained unrepresented. 4. The appellant - insurance company who is the 3rd respondent before WCC, filed objections to the claim petition contending that there is no relationship of master and servant between the deceased and owner of the vehicle. The deceased was travelling as an unauthorised passenger. No document has been produced to show that he died due to the accident. Further, the insurance policy does not cover the risk of a coolie working in the tractor and trailer. Hence, the insurer is not liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the WCC framed necessary issues. 6. The claimants in order to prove their case, the 1st claimant got examined herself as PW. 1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Hence, the insurer is not liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the WCC framed necessary issues. 6. The claimants in order to prove their case, the 1st claimant got examined herself as PW. 1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the appellant -insurance company, Sri S. Jagannath, Senior Assistant of the insurance company was examined as RW. 1 and got marked the insurance policy as Ex. R1. 7. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the police records, the WCC held that due to the road traffic accident occurred on 14.06.2006, Basawaraj died. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. During the relevant year, the person working as coolie in a tractor and trailer would earn Rs. 3,000/- per month. At the time of death, deceased was aged about 30 years. The WCC taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month, deducting 50% thereof and taking into consideration the age of the deceased as 30 years, applied the relevant factor of 207.98 and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,11,970/- with interest at 12% p.a. With regard to liability is concerned, in the insurance policy, there is no mentioning of the coverage with regard to the driver as well as the coolie. The tractor and trailer put together becomes a goods vehicle. Hence, the driver as well as the coolie are statutorily covered by the insurance policy. Accordingly, the WCC has fastened the liability on the insurance company to compensate the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant -insurance company filed this appeal. 8. Sri Manvedra Reddy, learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the owner of the vehicle has not supported the case of the claimants, though he was served with notice. No document has been produced to show that the deceased was working as a coolie in the said vehicle. Further, the insurance policy does not cover the risk of a coolie working in a tractor and trailer. No document has been produced to show that the deceased was working as a coolie in the said vehicle. Further, the insurance policy does not cover the risk of a coolie working in a tractor and trailer. Hence, the deceased has to be treated as an unauthorised passenger travelling in a tractor and trailer. He further contended that the tractor though was insured for the agricultural purpose, it is being used for some other purpose. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition by allowing the appeal. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the advocates appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and order passed by the WCC and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 10. The evidence on record clearly discloses that the husband of the 1st claimant and father of claimants 2 and 3 died in the road traffic accident occurred on 14.06.2006 while he was working as a cleaner in a tractor and trailer belonging to the 5th respondent herein. The specific case of the appellant is that the insurance policy does not cover the risk of the coolie working in a tractor and trailer. Further, though the tractor and trailer was insured for the agricultural purpose, it is being used for transportation of stones. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimants. 11. The evidence on record further discloses that while the deceased Basawaraj working as a coolie in a tractor and trailer belonging to 5th respondent, the vehicle met with an accident on 14.06.2006 and he died. The police had also registered a case in Crime No. 137/2006 against the driver of the tractor and trailer. The evidence on record and police records clearly discloses that the deceased Basawaraj died due to the accident occurred on 14.06.2006 during the course and out of employment. The claimants are the wife and children of deceased Basawaraj. Hence, the claimants are entitled for the compensation. 12. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, the WCC taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month, deducting 50% thereof; also considering the age of the deceased as 30 years and applying the relevant factor has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,11,970/- with interest at 12%p.a. Therefore, I find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the quantum of compensation awarded. 13. 3,000/- per month, deducting 50% thereof; also considering the age of the deceased as 30 years and applying the relevant factor has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,11,970/- with interest at 12%p.a. Therefore, I find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the quantum of compensation awarded. 13. With regard to liability is concerned, the 5th respondent is the owner of the tractor and trailer, which was insured with the appellant. The tractor and trailer put together becomes a goods vehicle. The driver as well as the cleaner working in a goods vehicle are statutorily covered by the insurance policy in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2011 KAR 4139 (National Insurance Company Limited v. Sri Maruthi and Others) and they are entitled for the compensation from the appellant. 14. I find that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the WCC. The issue raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment referred to above. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER "The appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit before this Court be transferred to the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Raichur, in view of abolition of the post of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation."