B. Manohar, J.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., filed these appeals challenging the judgment and order dated 28-10-2009 made in WCA/SR Nos. 68/2007, 83/2006, 45/2007 and 104/2006 passed by the Labour Officer, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-II, Bijapur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the WCC' for short), fastening the liability on them to compensate the claimants.

2. The common order passed by WCC has been challenged in these appeals. Hence, all the appeals are clubbed together and disposed of by this Common order.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 in MFA 30798/2010 and the first respondent in other appeals filed respective claim petitions contending that, son of the claimants one Sudheer and claimants in other appeals were working as coolies in a lorry bearing registration No. MH- 07/3384 belonging to the first respondent in all the claim petitions. On 01-03-2006, as per the instructions of owner of the vehicle, after loading cement mixture machine, and cement bags and steels, while proceeding from Devaghad to Balivade village, due to the rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by its driver, the vehicle met with an accident near Kesarkar Ice Factory. Due to the said accident, the claimants fell down from the lorry and cement mixture machine fell on Sudheer and other coolies. Due to the said impact, Sudheer died on the spot and other claimants had sustained grievous injuries. Immediately on accident, they were shifted to Government Hospital at Devaghad and after first aid, they took treatment in other private hospitals. They claimed that in view of the fracture of bones and injuries sustained, they have spent huge money towards their treatment and they cannot work as coolies as they were working prior to the accident. Prior to the accident, the owner of the vehicle was paying salary of Rs.200/- per day and batta of Rs. 50/- for the claimants in WCA Nos. 83/2006 and 84/2006; Rs. 200/- per day to the claimants in WCA Nos. 45/2007 and Rs. 150/- per day and Rs. 50/- in 104/2006; as batta for the deceased. As on the date of accident, the insurance policy covers the risk of coolies working in the said lorry. The accident occurred during the course and out of employment. Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation from the second respondent.

4. In pursuance of the notice issued by the WCC, though the owner of the vehicle was served with notice, he remained ex parte. The second respondent/insurance Company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that there is no relationship of master and servant between the deceased in the first claim petition and claimants in other claim petitions and owner of the offending vehicle. The driver of the offending lorry did not possess the valid and effective Driving License as on the date of accident. More than 20 to 30 persons were traveling in the vehicle as unauthorized persons. The insurance policy does not cover the risk of unauthorized passengers traveling in the goods vehicles. In the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional police by one Rajesh, he has clearly stated that 20 to 30 persons were traveling in the said lorry for the construction work. On that day, they had to lay the slab. No document has been produced to show that the deceased and claimants were working in the said lorry as coolies. The accident was not informed to the Insurance Company as required under Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act and there is violation of Rule 100 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Hence, the insurer is not liable to compensate the claimants and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the WCC framed necessary issues. The claimants in order to prove their cases, examined father of the deceased Sudheer and other claimants got examined themselves as witnesses and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex. P25. On behalf of the second respondent, one Mr. Rame