JUDGMENT : These appeals are filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur (henceforth referred to as 'Commissioner') dated 27.12.2012 in case WCA/CR/NO.43 to 46/2011. 2. The records before the Commissioner discloses that the claimants were all engaged as cleaner and loaders in a vehicle owned by the respondent No.2 herein bearing Reg.No.TN-28-H-1629 (henceforth referred to as 'offending vehicle'). It is stated that the respondent No.1 in MFA.No.30381/2013 who was employed as cleaner was paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- as monthly salary while other claimants who are employed on daily wages were paid Rs.150/- per day. On 15.05.2004, on instructions of the respondent No.2 the claimants were in the offending vehicle from Hospet to Chitradurga. At about 05.30 a.m., the driver of the offending vehicle who drove it in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against a Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA-04-A-7840. The claimants suffered injuries and were taken to Govt. Hospital for treatment and later were treated by a private doctor. The claimants contended that the accident occurred during and in the course of employment and therefore the respondent No.2 and appellant - insurer herein were liable to indemnify for the injuries sustained by them. The claimants therefore filed appropriate claim petitions under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Since the claimants had filed claim petitions belatedly, they filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim petitions. 3. The respondent No.2 admitted the fact that the claimants were employed as cleaner and loaders in the offending vehicle and they were paying a sum of Rs.100/- per day to each of them. He also admitted the relationship of employer and employee and that accident occurred during the course of employment. He contended that the vehicle in question was covered by a comprehensive policy and therefore the appellant is liable to indemnify the compensation that may be awarded by the Commissioner. 4. The appellant - insurer contested the claim petitions and denied the relationship of employee and employer between the claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle. It contended that the claimants were all unauthorized gratuitous passengers and therefore the policy of insurance did not cover the risk to gratuitous passengers. It contended that the claimants were not residing in the addresses mentioned in the cause title. It contended that the claimants were all unauthorized gratuitous passengers and therefore the policy of insurance did not cover the risk to gratuitous passengers. It contended that the claimants were not residing in the addresses mentioned in the cause title. It further claimed that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess authorization to drive the offending vehicle and therefore there was violation of the terms of insurance policy. 5. Based on these rival contentions the claim petitions were set down for trial. 6. The claimants examined themselves and marked common documents as Exs.A.1 to A.16. The appellant - insurer examined its official as DW.1 and marked exhibits Ex.D.1 and 2. 7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for claiming compensation. It further held that the claimants were all employed in the offending vehicle as cleaner and loaders on daily wages. The Commissioner held that each of the claimants were paid a monthly payment of Rs.3,000/- and having regard to the evidence of the doctor who treated the claimants that the claimants had suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 45%, determined the following compensation:- Claimant Name Per month salary Age Relevant Factor Loss of earning capacity Compensation awarded Sri. Shankar Rs.3,000/- 20 224.00 45 Rs.1,81,440/- Sri. Rangappa Rs.3,000/- 19 225.22 45 Rs.1,82,428/- Sri. Potappa Rs.3,000/- 19 225.22 45 Rs.1,82,428/- Sri. Prabhu Rs.3,000/- 20 224.00 45 Rs.1,81,440/- 8. Insofar as the liability to pay the compensation, the Tribunal held that the appellant - insurer had insured the offending vehicle by a comprehensive policy of insurance and since the insurance policy itself covered 03 coolies and the cleaner was statutorily covered as the offending vehicle was permitted to carry 02 persons in the cabin, the Commissioner held that the appellant - insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The Commissioner disallowed the interest from the date of accident in view of delay caused in filing the application and therefore, granted interest from 11.04.2011. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and orders referred above, the insurer has filed the present appeals. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant - insurer contended that no premium was collected for covering the risk of cleaner and hamalies. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and orders referred above, the insurer has filed the present appeals. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant - insurer contended that no premium was collected for covering the risk of cleaner and hamalies. He also contended that in terms of Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 no hamalie is permitted to travel in a goods vehicle from one district to another. He also contended that the Doctor who deposed before the Commissioner is not a doctor who treated the claimants and therefore the commissioner could not have relied upon his evidence to allow the claim petitions. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants invited my attention to the policy of insurer which is marked Ex.R.1 and claimed that 03 employees were covered and premium was collected. The learned counsel submitted that since the vehicle in question is a lorry, the claimants were cleaner and loaders and the sitting capacity in a lorry included the driver and a cleaner and therefore, he is impliedly covered. 12. Having regard to the above contentions, the following substantial question of law arise for consideration:- "Whether the claimants are covered under the policy of insurance issued by the appellant?" 13. The accident in question is not disputed by the appellant - insurer. The injures suffered by the claimants are also not disputed. The respondent No.2 admitted that the claimants were all employed with him and that the accident occurred during and in the course of their employment. Therefore, the only question that needs to be considered is whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. Ex.R.1 - Policy indicates that the insurer had collected the premium for 03 employees towards claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The vehicle in question is a lorry which was covered by a comprehensive policy of insurance and the cleaner is statutorily covered as a seating capacity in a lorry is two. Therefore, the insurer cannot avoid its liability to pay the compensation. Thus, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant-insurer. Hence, these appeals lack merits and same are dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal for necessary orders.