JUDGMENT : This is an appeal by the insurer calling in question the legality of the judgment and award dated 29.4.2015 passed in ECA No.1/2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, MACT and Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation at Raibag (for short, ‘Court below’). 2. Brief facts are that one Balappa Bhimappa Teli @ Ganiger was working as a Coolie in Borewell rig mounted vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-MH/6369. It is stated that on 1.9.2012 at about 5 p.m., deceased Balappa while working in the said vehicle as a coolie as per the instructions of Respondent No.1owner of the vehicle in question, was loading iron pipes to the said vehicle. At that time, iron pipe suddenly slipped and fell on the head of the deceased Balappa and on account of severe head injuries suffered by him, he was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum and he died on 7.9.2012. 3. In the claim proceedings, respondent No.1employer did not file any written statement. Respondent No.2-insurer has filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. 4. During the enquiry, claimant No.1 examined herself as PW1 and one witness by name Laxman Satteppa Munyal was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P33 were marked. The appellant-insurance company has examined one of its officials as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked. 5. Upon consideration of the entire materials produced before him, the learned trial Judge recorded a finding in favour of the claimants and against the insurance company and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,97,664/-with interest thereon at 12% per annum. 6. Sri.G.N. Raichur, learned counsel appearing for the insurer strongly contended that there was no policy coverage covering the risk of the employee like deceased and policy of insurance shows that additional premium was not collected to cover the risk of a coolie. He further contended that there was no effective and valid driving license held by the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of incident in question. He also contended that since the owner had entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not having driving license, there is breach of policy conditions and therefore, the appellant is not liable to reimburse the compensation. He also contended that since the owner had entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not having driving license, there is breach of policy conditions and therefore, the appellant is not liable to reimburse the compensation. He contended that the learned Court below has taken monthly wages of the deceased at Rs.8,000/, which is excessive being maximum notional wages fixed by the Act and therefore, same is liable to be reduced. Placing reliance on IMT-39, he contended that since no additional premium was collected, the insurance company is not liable to reimburse the compensation. In this behalf, he laid particular emphasis on Section-II of the Commercial Vehicles Package Policy. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants submits that the learned Court below having considered the entire materials produced before it, has given a finding and since the learned Court below is the final fact finding authority, the award is not liable to be interfered with. He submits that the driver was having valid and effective driving license as per Ex.R3 at the time of the accident. He further submits that the learned trial Judge has fixed the monthly wages at Rs.8,000/, and the same is not liable to be interfered with, on the sole ground that maximum notional wages under the Act itself has been fixed as the wages of the deceased. Hence, he submits that there is no merit in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and also perused the records. 9. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no policy coverage for coolie like deceased under the policy of insurance (Ex.R2) issued by the appellant. There cannot be any dispute that the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-01-MH/6369 which is undisputedly insured with the appellant herein is a heavy goods vehicle. This Court in a decision reported in 2005 (4) KCCR 2325 (M/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Prakash and Another) has observed that there is compulsory coverage under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the coolies working in the goods vehicle upto six in numbers. Paragraph5 of the said decision reads as under: “5 . This Court in a decision reported in 2005 (4) KCCR 2325 (M/s. The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Prakash and Another) has observed that there is compulsory coverage under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the coolies working in the goods vehicle upto six in numbers. Paragraph5 of the said decision reads as under: “5 . In respect of goods vehicle, the risk of the employees i.e. driver, cleaner and the loaders to the m aximum of six person is to be covered as required under the W.C. Act. In the case of passenger transport vehicle, driver, conductor and passengers have to be mandatorily covered by the Act policy.” 10. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Maruthi and others reported in 2012 ACJ 1408 has also taken the same view. Therefore, there is compulsory coverage to the coolies working in a heavy goods vehicle like one in question namely KA-01-MH/6369 upto a maximum of six persons. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no policy coverage for the coolies under the policy of insurance issued by it is unsustainable and accordingly, it is rejected. 11. Learned counsel further contended that since the mishap resulting in death of the deceased had taken place in front of Gudi (Temple), where the rig machine was mounted for sinking borewell, there is no liability on the part of the appellant/insurance company to reimburse the compensation amount in view of specific clause contained in the Commercial Vehicles Package Policy issued by the appellant insurer. For the said purpose, he laid particular emphasis on Section II of the Commercial Vehicles Package Policy issued by the appellant, which reads as under: Section II. Liability to Third parties 1. Subject to the limits of liability as laid down in the schedule hereto, the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle against all sums including claimant’s cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the vehicle. (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the vehicle. (ii) damage to property caused by the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the vehicle. Provided Always That: (a) The Company shall not be liable in respect of death, injury damage caused or arising beyond the limits of any carriage way or thoroughfare in connection with the bringing of the load to the insured vehicle for loading thereon or the taking away of the load from the insured vehicle after unloading therefrom. (b) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person in the employment of the insured arising out of and in the course of such employment. (Emphasis supplied) 12. Essence of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even though the liability of the risk to the loader could be covered by the policy either on account of compulsory nature of coverage or on account of appellant collecting premium for the said purpose, the liability of the appellant to reimburse the compensation ceases if the accident resulting in injury or death takes place in a place beyond a thoroughfare or the carriageway and in this case, admittedly, the vehicle was infront of Gudi (Temple) when the accident resulting in death of the deceased took place and therefore, appellant is not liable at all. As a matter of fact, it cannot be disputed that the rig machine was mounted on the vehicle in question and it is impossible to work the rig machine sans the vehicle on which it is mounted. Therefore, it is impossible to visualize a situation of working the rig machine with the vehicle insured on which it is mounted being always on a thoroughfare or a carriageway. Such a construction of the terms of the policy would defeat the very purpose of issuance of policy coverage. 13. The Court should avoid putting such construction upon clauses in the insurance policy which would render taking of the policy coverage meaningless. Such a construction of the terms of the policy would defeat the very purpose of issuance of policy coverage. 13. The Court should avoid putting such construction upon clauses in the insurance policy which would render taking of the policy coverage meaningless. The Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 has been consistently understood in this jurisdiction as a welfare legislation and once the policy coverage has been taken to subserve the purpose underlying the Act, it is necessary to bear in mind that putting a construction on the said clause rendering the liability of insurance company to reimburse the compensation nonexistent would defeat the very purpose of taking the policy coverage especially in view of the fact that the rig machine cannot be worked without it being always mounted on the insured vehicle. At the time of the accident, the rig machine which was mounted on the insured vehicle had completed the work of rigging borewell and the deceased was in the process of loading casing pipes to the said vehicle. Expression ‘Carriageway’ has not been defined in the Commercial Vehicles Package Policy. Therefore, it has to be construed in such a manner that the resultant position does not render taking of the policy of insurance nugatory. Certificate of insurance very clearly shows that the coverage of policy is for the make “Ashok Leyland Rig Mounted”. The fact that in this case, policy coverage is for the vehicle which is inclusive of the rig machine cannot be overlooked while putting a construction on the limitation of the liability incorporated under Section II. The rig machine cannot be separated from the vehicle and therefore, the worksite for the purpose of operation of the policy coverage should be taken to be part of the carriageway itself. Such a construction alone could make taking of policy meaningful. Such a construction is reasonable as is evident from the fact that taking the vehicle to the worksite is not the dominant cause for the happening of mishap nor such taking of the vehicle to the worksite has added to the risk of the appellant in connection with the policy coverage. Accordingly, it is impossible to countenance the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and it is therefore, rejected. 14. Accordingly, it is impossible to countenance the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and it is therefore, rejected. 14. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident i.e. on 1.9.2012 and therefore, the insured has violated the policy conditions by entrusting the vehicle to a person who was not in possession of valid and effective driving license. It is necessary to notice that the accident leading to death of the labourer working in the lorry which has resulted in the claim being made by the claimants herein has taken place when the vehicle was stationary and it was not being driven by driver at that time. In that situation, it is required to look at the dominant cause for the occurrence of the accident to which the driver having or not having valid and effective driving license has no nexus. One illustration will demonstrate the fallacy in the argument. Suppose a driver of an “Ashok Leyland rig Mounted” vehicle which is covered with a properly issued policy of insurance holding valid and effective driving license goes away for answering the call of nature and a hamali employed by the owner of the vehicle continues to load the vehicle as part of his duty and suffers an employment related injury, can the insurance company shrug off its liability? There is no distinction in principle between the present case and the case in the illustration. In both the situations, the vehicle was stationary and therefore, the driver having a valid license or not has no reasonable nexus to the happening of the accident. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the owner has breached the conditions of policy of insurance and hence, the appellant is not liable to reimburse the compensation. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned Court below has committed a serious error in fixing the wages of a coolie at Rs.8,000/-per month, when the maximum notional wages fixed by the Act is Rs.8,000/-per month. I find some force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned Court below has committed a serious error in fixing the wages of a coolie at Rs.8,000/-per month, when the maximum notional wages fixed by the Act is Rs.8,000/-per month. I find some force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. When the maximum notional wages fixed for the workman is Rs.8,000/, without any credible material being placed before the Court, it was not correct on the part of the learned Court below to have fixed monthly wages of deceased at Rs.8,000/. Since the deceased was a coolie, who was loading and unloading the pipes to the vehicle in question, I am of the view that it is reasonable to take his monthly wages for the year 2012 at Rs.7,000/. Accordingly, the compensation is liable to be recalculated as follows: Rs.7,000 x 50/100 x 153.09 = Rs.5,35,815/- 16. The claimants are entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs.5,35,815/-as against Rs.6,97,664/- awarded by the learned Court below. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) The above appeal is allowed in part. (b) The impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs.5,35,815/-as against Rs.6,97,664/-awarded by the learned Court below with interest thereon at 12% per annum w.e.f. thirty days from the date of accident till date of realization. (c) The amount in deposit before this Court, if any, shall be transmitted to the learned Court below forthwith along with the records. (d) The excess amount shall be refunded to the appellant insurance company.