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. 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