1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1253/2008. The United India Insurance Company. VERSUS Smt.Geeta Devi & Others. 10.04.2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Amarnath Pareek, for the appellant. Mr.Vinay Mathur, for the respondents. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner dated 16.01.2008 by which the award of Rs.3,88,000/- has been passed in favour of the claimants on account of the death of their son Radheyshyam who died in an accident on 16.12.2007 while working as a labourer with the respondent No.3. The learned Commissioner has found that the deceased was employed with the respondent No.3 and was going with the tractor carrying manure and during the aforesaid work met with an accident resulting into his death. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Policy was an act only policy covering the risk of the driver alone and, therefore, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay damages for the death of the employee. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award passed by the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner has taken into consideration the contents of the policy and has given a finding that the policy in question of the tractor No.RJ-21/RA-2782 was not in respect of the 'driver' as is sometimes specifically mentioned in the policy but was to cover the risk of one 'employee' for whom the premium had been paid by the owner/insured. In view of the above finding that the deceased was an employee of the respondent No.3/employer and was going with the tractor in the course of the above employment carrying manure for agricultural purpose having met with an accident and the respondent No.3 was the owner of the vehicle has a valid policy of the tractor concerned which covered the risk of one employee and not the driver specifically, the Insurance Company has rightly been held to be liable for the death of the employee even though he was not the driver. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the learned Commissioner has committed a serious error in holding that the deceased was earning Rs.3,400/-. So far as the above contention is concerned, the learned Commissioner has taken into consideration the evidence led on behalf of the claimants and since there was no evidence in rebuttal from the side of the Insurance Company/appellant, the learned Commissioner reduced the amount as alleged by the claimants from Rs.4,000/- to 3 Rs.3,400/-. In the facts and circumstances when there was no rebuttal from the side of the appellant Insurance Company, there was no occasion for the learned Commissioner to have reduced the said amount suo moto. Be that as it may, since there is no appeal from the side of the claimants, I am not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the learned Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal as well as the stay application stand dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.