JUDGMENT : (V. Srinivas, J.) : This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Anantapur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.681 of 2009 dated 11.11.2011. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the tractor-cum-trailer bearing No.AP 02 M 2721 and 2722 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the wife, son, and parents of one T.Narayana Swamy (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively. The respondent No.5 is the owner of the said crime vehicle. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 30.08.2006, on the instructions of owner of the crime vehicle, deceased went on crime vehicle and after loading the mud into the vehicle, the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and ran over a boulder, resulted, the trailer fell on the deceased, who was standing by the side of the road and sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day. ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. 5. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle; that the petition is bad for non-joinder of driver of the crime vehicle as party to the proceedings and thereby, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased T.Narayana Swamy? 2. Whether there is rash and negligence in driving the crime vehicle by its driver at the time of the accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and from which respondent? and 5. To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were exhibited. 8. 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and from which respondent? and 5. To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were exhibited. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,40,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer. 10. Heard Sri M.Srinubabu, learned counsel representing Sri N.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer. 11. Sri M.Srinubabu, learned counsel representing Sri N.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the claimants failed to prove that deceased was working as coolie in the crime vehicle as well not paid any premium to cover the risk of coolies; that the tribunal should be restricted the liability to the Workmen Compensation Act and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. 12. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the findings recorded by the Tribunal under issue No.3 is sustained in the eye of law?” 13. POINT: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of crime vehicle in the incident as well deceased working as coolie in the crime vehicle by the time of incident. It is also an undisputed fact that the claimants did not prefer any appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal. 14. The only contention raised by the appellant is that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants since no premium was paid to cover the risk of coolies and the liability is only under Workmen Compensation Act. 15. To fortify the same, the insurer relied upon the testimony of R.Ws.1 and 2. Albeit, R.W.2 categorically testified during cross examination that in Ex.B.4 R.C. extract of trailer nothing was mentioned regarding hamalies that they can travel in the trailer for loading and unloading the material. 15. To fortify the same, the insurer relied upon the testimony of R.Ws.1 and 2. Albeit, R.W.2 categorically testified during cross examination that in Ex.B.4 R.C. extract of trailer nothing was mentioned regarding hamalies that they can travel in the trailer for loading and unloading the material. Even on perusal of Ex.B.1 photostat copy of policy exhibited by the insurer through R.W.1, who is its official, premium was paid to the tractor as well trailer to cover the risk of owner cum driver and worker or employee and a premium of Rs.728/- paid for loading on T.P. Thereby, it is clear in vivid terms that the premium was paid to cover the risk of one employee in the vehicle, which is not denied by the insurer before the Tribunal. As stated supra, it is an undisputed fact, even as per the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2, the deceased was attending as a loading and unloading coolie in the crime vehicle by the time of incident. It is also not in dispute that that the Ex.B.1 policy is in force by the time of incident and it is a comprehensive policy. Thereby, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. 16. The Tribunal after elaborately discussing came to a right conclusion that premium paid to the employee for loading and unloading, it can be taken as workmen or employee or hamali. Hence, the respondent No.2 company simply by saying that there is no proof of deceased present in the tractor at the time of accident as hamali is trying to avoid compensation. 17. Now, it is needless to say that the appellant/insurer did not urge any grounds regarding the calculations made by the Tribunal as well quantum of compensation awarded, thereby, this Court need not interfere with the said conclusions arrived by the Tribunal. 18. Thereby, viewing of any angle, this Court does not find any fault with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 19. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.