1. This is an appeal by the insurer calling in question the legality of the judgment and award dated 29.4.2015 passed in ECA No. 1 of 2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, MACT and Commis­sioner for Employee's Compensation at Raibag (for short 'court below').

2. Brief facts are that one Balappa Bhimappa Teli alias Ganiger was working as a coolie on borewell rig mounted vehicle bearing registration No. KA 01 - MH 6369. It is stated that on 1.9.2012 at about 5 p.m., deceased Balappa while working on the said vehicle as a coolie as per the instruc­tions of respondent No. 1 - owner of the vehicle in question, was loading iron pipes in the said vehicle. At that time, iron pipe suddenly slipped and fell on the head of the deceased Balappa and on account of severe head injuries suffered by him, he was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum and he died on 7.9.2012.

3. In the claim proceedings, respondent No. 1 - employer did not file any written statement. Respondent No. 2 - insurer has filed a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

4. During the inquiry, claimant No. 1 examined herself as PW 1 and one witness by name Laxman Satteppa Munyal was examined as PW 2 and Exhs. P1 to P33 were marked. The appellant insurance company has examined one of its officials as RW 1 and Exhs. R1 to R7 were marked.

5. Upon consideration of the entire materials produced before him, the learned trial Judge recorded a finding in favour of the claimants and against the insurance company and awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,97,664 with interest thereon at 12 per cent per annum.

6. Mr. G.N. Raichur, learned counsel appearing for the insurer strongly contended that there was no policy coverage covering the risk of the employee like deceased and policy of insurance shows that additional premium was not collected to cover the risk of a coolie. He further con­tended that there was no effective and valid driving licence held by the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of incident in question. He also contended that since the owner had entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not having driving licence, there is breach of policy conditions and therefore the appellant is not liable to reimburse the compensation. He contended that the learned court below has taken monthly wages of the deceased at Rs. 8,000, which is excessive being maximum notional wages fixed by the Act and therefore same is liable to be reduced. Placing reliance on IMT 39, he contended that since no additional premium was collected, the insurance company is not liable to reimburse the compensation. In this behalf, he laid particular emphasis on section II of the Commercial Vehicles Package Policy.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - claimants submits that the learned court below having considered the entire material produced before it, has given a finding and since the learned court below is the final fact finding authority, the award is not liable to be interfered with. He submits that the driver was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as per Exh. R3. He further submits that the learned trial Judge has fixed the monthly wages at Rs. 8,000, and the same is not liable to be interfered with on the sole ground that maximum notional wages under the Act itself has been fixed as the wages of the deceased. Hence, he submits that there is no merit in the appeal and same is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and also perused the records.

9. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no policy coverage for a coolie like deceased under the policy of insurance (Exh. R2) issued by the appellant. There cannot be any dispute that the vehicle bearing registration No. KA 01 - MH 6369 which is undis­putedly insured with the appellant herein is a heavy goods vehicle. This court in the case of New India Assurance Co. L