JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgement and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court, Thanjavur in MCOP.No.338 of 2015 dated 20.04.2017.) 1. The above appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur in MCOP.No.338 of 2015 primarily on the ground of liability. 2. According to the claim petition, the deceased claimant was travelling in a Tata Ace Goods Vehicle on 13.10.2014 for the purpose of laying of Thar road. The deceased was sitting on the vehicle for the purpose of loading blue metal on a later point of time. The driver of the Tata Ace drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased had fallen from the vehicle on the road and she scummed to the injuries. The claimants have sought for a sum of Rs.20 lakhs towards compensation. 3.According to the claimants, the deceased was a coolie woman and she was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. 4. The owner of the Tata Ace had remained exparte and the second respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter contending that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in the goods vehicle and she was not a loadwoman. As per policy terms and conditions, no person shall be allowed to travel in the place where the goods are loaded. They had further contended that the loadwoman is allowed to load and unload the goods, only when the vehicle is stationed. The Insurance company had further contended that the F.I.R has been lodged by a co-passenger which reveals that all of them have travelled in the Tata Ace vehicle only as coolies and not as owners of the goods or loadwomen. 5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, had arrived at a conclusion that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Ace belonging to the first respondent. The Tribunal further found that the driver of Tata Ace was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The Tribunal had further found that the deceased had travelled in the vacant goods carriage only as a loadwoman. The policy being a package policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal further found that the driver of Tata Ace was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The Tribunal had further found that the deceased had travelled in the vacant goods carriage only as a loadwoman. The policy being a package policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 6.The Tribunal had relied upon the judgement of the Hon''ble Division Bench of Gujarat High Court reported in 2016 1 TN MAC 606 (DB) (Guj.)( New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., Vs. Rekhaben Bharatkumar Nanalal Thakkar and others) and also the judgement of our High Court reported in 2017 (1) TN MAC 184 ( New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., Vs.Murugan) had arrived at a finding that if a loadman had travelled in goods carriage, even without payment of any additional premium, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation for the death or injury of the said loadman. 7. The Tribunal had fixed the monthly income at Rs.8,750/- and added 30% towards future prospects and arrived at a monthly income of Rs.11,375/-. Thereafter, 1/4th towards personal expenses was deducted and finally, monthly income was arrived at Rs.8,531/-, by applying multiplier of 13, the Tribunal had arrived at a compensation of Rs.13,30,836/- under the head of loss of income. The Tribunal had further awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, totally a sum of Rs.14,55,836/- has been awarded. This award is under challenge in the present appeal. 8. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company, the deceased had travelled in a goods carriage not as owner or representative of the goods. Admittedly, the vehicle was empty at the time of accident. The deceased and few others have travelled in the said vehicle only as gratuitous passengers at the time of accident. The F.I.R has been lodged by the husband of the deceased and in the said F.I.R, there is no reference that the deceased had travelled as loadwoman. The learned counsel had further contended that even as per the averments in the claim petition, one Palaniammal had invited the deceased and few other persons to travel in the Tata Ace vehicle for the purpose of laying a Thar road. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was not an employee of the insurer. The learned counsel had further contended that even as per the averments in the claim petition, one Palaniammal had invited the deceased and few other persons to travel in the Tata Ace vehicle for the purpose of laying a Thar road. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was not an employee of the insurer. The deceased had travelled at the invitation of one Palaniammal and therefore, she could only be considered to be an unauthorisied passengers in a goods carriage. When the goods carriage was empty at the time of accident, the only conclusion that could be arrived at is that the deceased had travelled as an unauthorised passenger. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant had relied upon Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and contended that if the person travelling in goods carriage in the capacity other than the owner of the goods, the insurer would not be liable. He relied upon the judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2008 (2) TN MAC 231 (SC) (United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Suresh K.K.& another) to contend that the term any person referred in Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act would not include a gratuitous passengers. The learned counsel for the appellant had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench of our High Court reported in 2018(2) TN MAC 731 (DB) (Bharati AXA General Insurance Co.,Ltd. Vs. Anandi and others) to contend that for the death or injury of a passenger/gratuitous passenger in a good vehicle, the insurer cannot be held liable. The insurer cannot even be directed to pay and recover the award amount where the policy is required to cover only certain classes of persons. There is no mandatory requirement for the insurer to cover persons travelling as passengers in goods vehicle unless the occupant is the authorised representative or the owner of the goods accompanying the goods. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the Tribunal had not properly appreciated the judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and has arrived at an erroneous finding that the loadwoman would be covered in the insurance even if additional premium is not paid by the insured person. Hence, he prayed for exonerating the insurance company and fix the liability upon the owner of the Tata Ace vehicle. 11. Hence, he prayed for exonerating the insurance company and fix the liability upon the owner of the Tata Ace vehicle. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the policy being a package policy and the deceased had travelled only as loadwoman, the policy covers the said loadwoman also. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Tribunal was right in mulcting the liability upon the insurance company. 12. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 13. The accident had taken place at about 7.30 a.m on 12.10.2014. The F.I.R has been lodged by the husband of the deceased at about 08.30 a.m on the same day. In the F.I.R, there is no reference that the deceased was travelling in the goods carriage as a loadwoman. In fact, it is specifically stated in the F.I.R that she had travelled in order to attend the road laying work. A perusal of the insurance policy marked as Exhibit R1 indicates that it is a liability only policy. The premium has been paid towards Basic Third Party Cover and also for the P.A. Coverage of the owner/driver. That apart that no other additional premium has been paid to cover any further liability. 14. The son of the deceased has been examined as PW1. In his cross examination, he has admitted that in the Tata Ace Vehicle 12 persons have travelled. He had further admitted that he had also travelled in the said vehicle and they have travelled for attending road laying work. Therefore, it is clear that neither in the F.I.R nor in the evidence of PW1, it is reflected that the deceased had travelled in the good vehicle as a loadwoman. Only in the claim petition, it has been stated that the deceased along with others had travelled in the vehicle for the purpose of loading blue metal on a later point of time. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2008 (2) TN MAC 231 (SC) (United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Suresh K.K.& another), has held that a coolie worker would not be covered by the policy of insurance. 15. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 2008 (2) TN MAC 231 (SC) (United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Suresh K.K.& another), has held that a coolie worker would not be covered by the policy of insurance. 15. Therefore, it is clear that the policy being a liability only policy and no additional premium has been paid for covering the loadwoman, the insurance company would not be liable to pay compensation, especially in a case where the claimants have not established the fact that the deceased had travelled as loadwoman. 16. The Tribunal without properly considering the scope of the insurance policy and the contention of the claimants, had arrived at an erroneous finding that the deceased had travelled as loadwoman and the insurance policy covered the injured or death of a person even without payment of additional premium. 17. In view of the above said deliberations, the award of the Tribunal in mulcting the liability upon the Insurance Company is not legally sustainable and the same is set aside. In view of non coverage of the policy, only the owner of the vehicle namely the first respondent is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the award as against the appellant/insurance company is hereby set aside and the liability is fixed on the fifth respondent in the appeal/first respondent in the claim petition. The first respondent in the claim petition is directed to satisfy the award. 18. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed to the extent as stated above. No costs.