INIHF H1GH(O1’RTOI KARNATARA CIRCUIT BFNCH AT DHARWAD [WI El) HIS THE 1 T11 PAY OF SF VUF MBFR, 2008 flEPORE THE HON’BI E MR “STICF K RAMANNA M’A NO 212/200’S RFTWEEN’ M/S )JNITFD IND 1 A 1NSIJRAN(’E CO ITO bY 118 [3ANGAbORh REGIONAL o1 GE I)NITED INDIA INSuRANCE C( ITO SHANKARANARAYANA RIJILDTNG M (YR )AD, RANCAI ORF-360 001 555 f TPP DEPUTY MANAGER APPE’ I ANT fRY SRI 5 ADV A NI) NAOARAJ 2t NGAPT fi 5/0 SIIIVAPPA SUNKAPA 27 YKA, tD’A ruIbhWAb)RA RI/ELI B IWIARMAPPA WAN’iTIVA RA ;OD A ‘001 RALU 7 HIKIcAHAI TI POST HUIICAPTPIJRA TALUK SIITW GA DISTRICT RESPONDENTS (BY cp’ LAXMAN T MAWPAGAN’, ADV FOR P I SF1 S V PESAI, ADV Fop B THIS APPFAL 13 FIT PD li/s 30 OF W ‘ACT ACAINST THE UJDGMLNI AND ORDER DATED 13 3 2003 PASSED IN WCA//46/200J ON iHE OLE OF [HE LABOUR OFRICER AND C( MMISSIONFR FOR WORKMFN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, IJUBLI AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RSJ,33,956/ WI 1! INPtdRES’f AT 12% VA FROM ib-i-200J TILL DEFOSIT ANT) DTRECTTNG TH APPRI LANT AND PE5PONDENT NO 2 HEREiN TO DEPOSIT THF SAME CROSS 013IF 1 CTIONS NO 54J2Q TM nr fl i LL!” 1 isiaaLts$ B ETWF F N• NAGAWA I ‘a NAGAPPA 3/0 SLP/AP T ’A SUNKAD 28 [Rb, R/o KESHWAPURA 19 HUBLI, P1ST DRARWAD tRUSS ORJFCTOR (BY SRI IAXMAN T MANTAGANI, AD AND DIcIoNAL MANAGER T NrED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD HITBLT 2 B TV-IARMAPPA 5( IcAN’[I[i—PA DODDAJ OGIHALLI 1081: CHIKKAFAJJILALL DIST FRIMOGA RESPONDFNTE 1 11’S CROSS OBJECTIONS ‘S FILFD IN MFA NO 212 2006 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 PULE 22 CRC AGAINRC THE JUDGMENT ANt) ORDER liMED I99200o PASSEu IN WCA/F/46/2003 uN rHb FILE OF THE IABOIJR OFFICER AND COMMISSIrNEP FOR WORKMFN’S COMPENSATION, HUBUI SUB-DlVISION1 HUBLI ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR CuMPENSATL )N AND SEEKiNG ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSAPION, 202I200E BFTW F F N M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD HUDLI BY ITS HANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE JNITFD INDIA INSURANCE ‘‘O LTD SHANKARANAFAYANA BUILDING M G ROAD, BANGAI OPE560 001 RF P BY ITS DF’YPY MANAGER flPFI ‘ANT ‘BY SRI S SPISHAILA, AD’!) AND 1 BASAWA W/O SHEKHkRA GOWDP GUFANAGOWDA 40 YRS 2 KUMAP’ KALAVA’rHI D/O SHFKHAPA GOWVi OITPANAC’)WDA YRS. 3 SI4IVANAGOIJDA S/c SHEKHAR’. GOWDA A C. .4 .)TNl’ GOWDA coo cZHPKHPRA (‘OWDA CAIPANA(( WA -N I All AR R/O KSHWAPURA , HUB I S1NGE TIlL DELI GNDENi’S 210 4 ARE MINURb THEY ARE RrPRbSENTbD B? GUARDIAN NATURAL MO’PHFR - REpsONr)cNr1) B OHARMAPPA RANTHYAPPA DODDAJOGIHALL1 rHli{KAHALLI POST Sf9 KARIPURA TALUK SIP MOGA DISTRIOT RESPONDENTS BY SRI [AXMAN T MANTAGANI ADV Rfl R- 1; SRI S V DESAI, ADV FOR R 5) THIS AFAI IS FILED “/5 36 OF W C A’” kGiNT THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATE 19 6-2005 PASSED IN *OA/t/1U/2003 ON ‘iHE HEr or THE LABOUR OFFIcER ANu COMMiSSiONER FOR WORI(MPN YMPF NEATION, SUB-DIV’SION$, U”DLI AWARDING CGMPENS’D0N 01’ RS i,9i,297/ WITH IN1ERESi’ 41 12% PA F R(M 16-1 20u2 1Kb DEROSiI AND D 1 PFCIiNG THE APPF1TAN’r AND RESPONDENT NO S HEREIN TO DEPOSIT THE SAME (‘ROSS OB’EGTIONS NO 55/20fl G.202’2006 BETWN’ HASAVVA W/C SHLKHARAOOWDA GIJRAN&GO’JDAR ‘C V’D -‘‘, Li ) i(ii?flARIKAIVATIJ D/ SRF’{H&RAGOWDA ilRAN4 001 DAT? Ic YRS SHiVANAGOU DA 5/n SHEi{H4Rp( ‘)WD& CIRANA” )i1)[P ‘A L 3 4 SPIRANTT4 5/0 SUP WI4ARAGOWDA GTRANACOUDAR 2 YRS CROSS 082 ECIPORS ALL ARE R/O KESHWAPDRA , HURL! (SINCE ‘IMP. CROSS OR IECPFORS-2 TO 4 ARE MINORS THEY ARE REF RESEN FED BY GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER - CROSS OBJECI OR-i) AN& I DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITFD INDIA INSURANCE”) LTD IFURLI 2 4 DHARMAPPk S’O KANTYAPPA DCL;DAcJOGIHA LU P053: CHIKKAPAJJIHALLI DIST: SUJYOGA FSPONDNP THIS CROSS ORIECITIONS IS RI! ED IN MPA NO 20Z/20 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 CRC AGAINST THE JUDGMEN’I AND ORDER DAFbD 19-9-2005 PASSr.D IN WGA/F/I0/2003 ON IHE RILE OP THE LAR”UR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER POR WORKMFN ‘OMPENSA’ITON, HITRLI SUB-DIVISION 1, HURL ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR CoMPENSATION AN’) SEEKING P NHANCEMEN P OP COMPENSA’I iON. MIE&Nn2QiL2QQo i3ETWF N V/S IJNITFD ‘NDIA ‘NSUR&NCP CO ‘TD ‘I ‘T’T B’! IIS RANCiAI,OF?E RELAONAL, ‘)IFICi! 119!TP D INDIA INS! IRA NCE CO LTD SHANRARANARAYANA pr IIL )ING V C R’AD. RANGALORE-Stmfl 001 REF 3? I PS DEPUTY MANAGER APE ELLA NT tRY SRI S SPISHAILA, ADVI 6 AND NIRMALA W/O BASALINGAPRA. KOPPADA 40 YRS. 2 SANGAPPA W/O SHIVAPPA KOPPADA 7YRS, ‘F. 4 BO’i H ARE P/C uASi HIKOFFA KALACF{A’fl’A TALIJK F OHARWAD DISTRICT. “ ç ç ‘ 3 H DHAPMAPRA S/C KANTHYAPPA t DODDAJOGIHALLI LI I) L C’ HtKKAHALLI POST SHIKARIPUPA TALUK SHiMGA DTSTRIrP PESONDENTS I SRI I AXMAN T MANTAGAN!, ADV FCT P-I & 2 P 3 SERVED! THIS APPEAl IS Eli ED li/S 30 OF W C AOl’ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19-9 2005 PASSED IN WCA/F/11/2003 ON THE FILE OF’ THE LABOUR UFFICER AND COMMISSIONF R FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SI I- DIVISION-I HURL! AWARDING COMPENSATION OF PS t38700/- WiTH INTEREST AT 12% P A FRoM 16-1-2003 PiLl DEPOSIT AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT AND RESPONDFWP NO 3 HEREIN 10 DEPOSIT ‘IRE SAME OS0RIECTIQfl3NO 5jJ2QQ_6 NO 204 2006 9ETWEN I NIPMALA Will BASALINCAPPA KOPPADA, 40 YRS / d 2 SANGAPPA W/O F!JAPPA KOPADk 57 YET. ta/f H ARE R/o DASIHIKOPPA KALACHATAGI TATJTIC DFIARWA 0 DISTRICT opusS OPJF°TU PS (BY SRI LAXMAN T MANTACANI, AD’?) AND: DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA TNSTTRANCV CO L T D HURT) 2 B DHARMAPPA S/U KANTYAPPA DOE DA OGIIIALL I OS]: HIKKAPkJJinALU DIST SHIMOCA PFSPONDFNTS Tf’IS CR°SS ORTFr’TiONS IS P11 D TN MtA NO 04/2006 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 GPO AGAINST TEE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED I9-9200S PASSED IN WCA/F/ 11/2003 ON THE PILF 01’ THE LEBOUR OFPI( ER AND COMMISSIONFR FOR WORKMFN ‘OMPENSA11ON, HI/RI) SUB DIVISION I, 141/RU ALLOWING THE CLAIM PE PITION FOR GOML ENSATION AND SEEKINO ENHANCEMENT of (‘oMPENSA lION MEA No 208,2000 BETWEEN M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE Ti LTD lIT Ti3L1 BY ITS BANOALONE xEGIONAL Of FiC E UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COLTD SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING M C ROAD BANGALORE560 001 REP I Y 1 TS DEPIi9 MANACEL Al PELLANT p (BY SRI S cRISHAII A, ADV) AND *t 1 (\ 5tA VEERABHADRAPPA 5/0 ERAPPA HULIKATPI N 52YRS. G I ‘N\ 2 CHANNAWA lo ‘cL\\ WIG VERRABHADRAPPA HUI IKATI’I 47YRS - B&IH ARE H/U DASTHIKOPPA KM AGHA’fl’A TALUK DHAPWAD DISTRICT 3 BDHARMAPPA (v 5/0 KANTHYAPPA DODDAJOGIHALLI UHiKKAHALLI PUS! HIKARIPhIRA TALIJK I , STJIMOGA DISTRICT RESPONDPNTS (BY SRI LAYMAN T MANTAGANI, ADV FOR R 1 & 2, S V DESAI, ADV FOR R-3) THIS APPEAL IS FILFD U/S 30 OF W C ACT AGPINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10-9 2003 PASSED IN WGA/F/ 13/2003 ON THE tULE Ut’ THE LABOUR O(RICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, ST’B-DIVISTON-I, GURU AWARDING COMPENSAPIGN OF PS. 1,77,981/ WITH INIEREST Al 12% PA. FROM .o-D2003 TILL DEPuSII AND DIRFGTING THE APPEUI ANT AND PFSPONOFNT NO 3 PERFIN TO DEPOSIT 91-IF SAMF ECTjQ 1 N NL2Q06 BETWEEN’ VEERABHADRAPA S,’o FRAPPA PIJUIKA’ITI 2 YRS 0 2 HANNAWWA W/O VFERARHADPAPPA HUI IKAflI 47 YRS. .. CROSS OBJECTORS BOTH ARF R/O DASTHIKOPPA KALAGHATIPA TALUK DHARWAD DIS’I RIO I. AND DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO I TD HUBLI 2 B DHARMAPPA 5/0 KANTYAPP DODDAJOGIHALLI POST. CHIKKAPAJJIHALLI DIS’P SHIMOGA THIS CROSS OBJECTIONS IS FILED IN MFA NO 208/2006 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OR AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 1994005 PASSED IN WGA/F/ 13/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONFR FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, HUBLI STJBDIVISION I • HUSH ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT O COMPENSATION. NEt’_NQ1Q,,(QQj RETWEEN M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD HURL! BY ITS BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE IJNUED INDIA INSURANCE CO LiD SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING M G ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRY ITS DEPU’I7 MANAGER APPELLANT (BY SRI S SRTSHAILA, ADV) 10 AND 1 SHOBHA W/O CHANNABASAPPA KOPPADA 24 YRS. 2 T3ASAWA W/0 MAHADEVAPA KOPPADA 57 YRS. 130TH ARE RESIDENTS OF KESHAWAPURA, HUI3LI 3 BDHARMAPPA 8/0 KANTHYAPPA DODDAJOGIHALLI CHIKKAHALLI POST SHIKARIPITRA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAXMANTMANTAGANI ADV FOR RO &2; R3 SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FTLED U/S 30 flF WC AT AGATNT THF JUDGMEWr AND ORDER DATED 192005 PASSED IN W(A/F/19/2003 ON THE FILE OF iRE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIV1S’ON’ HUBLI AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS 1,65,583/ WITH iNIEREST AT 12% LA, FROM 16-i20O3 TILL DEFOSIT ANI) DIRECTING THE APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT N HERETN TO DEPOSIT THF SAME CR(flR1ECTTO MS Q5,i 2006 FA NO 210 2006 I3ETWEEN. SHOBHA W/O CHANNAI3AkPPA KPPADA 24 YRS U 2 BASAVVA W/O MAHADEVAPPA KOPPADA 52 YRS. CROSS OIkIECTUES BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OC KESHAWAPURA HUBLI IBY SRI IAXMAN T MANTAGANI, AD\9 AND I DIVISIONAL MANAGFR UN’TED INDIA INSURANCE O.LTO HURL! 2 BDHARMAPPA 5/0 KANTYAPPA DOD DAJOGIHALLI PUS I CHiKKAPAJJIHALL1 DIST SHIMOGA RESPONDENTS THIS CROSS OBJECTIONS IS P11 El) IN MFA NO 210/200E PILED UNDER ORDER II RULE 22 CRC AOA[NST TIlE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19-9-2005 PASSED TN WCA/F/ 19/2003 ON I HF FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSTflNER OR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, HURL) SHB-DIVTSION-U HITBU ALLOWING TIlE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSAIION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OL COMPENSATION. THESE APPFALS & CROSS ORJ (‘lIONS COMING ON FOR 1’ EARING THIS DAY, I HF COT Wi DELIVERED THE POLl OWING JI TDGMENT All these five appeals are ified by the insurer of the vehicle r hallengmg the correctness and legality of the liability fastened on it H’ the Commissioner for Workmen Compensati ‘n Hubli as pr V ii the common judgment and award dated 19-9 2005 passed in WCA/ Fl Nos, 10 11, 13 & 19 & 46 of 2003. The respondents claimants have also filed cross objections seeking enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, all these c ases as well as cross ohje lions are taken lip together for final disposai in order to avoid repetition of facts. 2 The brief facts of the uase are that the claimants in WCA/F/ 11, 13 & tO of 2003 are filed by the dependants of the deceased hamalies who were working under the owner of the vc hide in question which met with an accident on 1$ I 22002. The c laimants in WCA/ Fl 10 of 2003 are the dependants of the deceased who was the driver of the vehicle m qnestion and the claimant in WCAJ Ff46 of 2003 is the rnjnred hamah who met with an accident. Tin tiactor trailor heanng No K413/J 763 and RA 151 92468 is the vehick involved in the accident and the said vchicle was dub insured with the rnsnremappellant and the pc i’d} was in force 5 q on the date of accident The case of the claimants/cross ohecton is that on l6 I 22002 at about 930 ajm. as per the diwtion 01 he owncr of the tractor, while I carrying the stones and jelly for construction of water tank and hund in a lease hold land of the mcner of the tractor in onler to avoid a huffalo on the hndge of Bedthihall village, the driver of the cross objector lost control over thc tractor and dashed against the bridge. D re to the said dash the Tractor along with the trailor fell don in the ‘Mafia’ and as a result of which, the driver of the said vehicle and coolies travelling therein sustained injunes and many of them have succumbed to the injuries. Therethw, the claimants iii WCAF NoslO, 11 , 13 & 19 being dependent of the deceased employees filed a clmm petition s hereas WCA/ F, No 46/2003 has hc n tiled by the injured himself with a prayer to ax ard compensation on various heads. 3. In pursuance of the summons issued, respondents appeawd through counsel and filed d ztailed statement of ohjecfions ‘The respondent I who is the owner nf the vehicle appeawd arid filed statement nf objections ad Initung that the dec eased and the mjured were his employees, however disputed the amount of salary paid to each of the workman. Whereas the appellar t wh was the ijsiuer of the vehicle filed a detai 1 ed J statement of objections c )ntendmg that tractor and trolley in which stones were carried not for the construction of any farm house or in the land belonging to respondent- 1 and that the policy in question issued by it does not cover the risk of coolies in tractor and trolley The deceased (rummj who drove the vehicle was not h wing valid driving licence. After considering the evidence placed on record h all the parties. the claim petitions were partly allowed awarding compensation and the appellant being insurer of the vehicle was dnrctedto pay the compensation Being aggneved by the liability fastened, the appellant-insurer has filed the appeals. 4 The claimants huve also filed their respective cross ohjectons on the ground that compensation awarded hv the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is too low, the Tribunal has taken the lesser iroome and therefore thet pray for nhancement of compensation awarded to th claimants r It is a gued by the learned coimsel for the appellant insurer that there was no coverage to the holly Thc polka in question a as isned is miscellancons policy agri uhi ral poli and the risk of the coolies are not covered by the polie Therefore liability fastened on the appellant is totally incorrect and illegal. It is thither argued that driver of the tractor arid trollv has not possessed effective driving licence. The occner of tin vehicle has not produced any driving licence possessed by the driver of the vehicle i e the deceased Shekaragouda. In the absence of an’ licence produced, it qhonkl he held that deceased Shekargouda was not holding valid licence, it is argued that appellant produced the cerdficate issued by the PO Madurai to show that deceased shankargouda as not holding any driving bet nec Though the summons was duly sewed on the RTO, Madurai he did not appear for the reasons best known to them The copy of AnnexureR I produced m this case clearly indicates that it is fals. and concocted document issued by Pit, Chennar it is further argued that in case, the court comes to the conclusion that driver of the vehicle was holding a valid dnving licence bitt there is no endorsement made by the RTO on Ex. R t to drive the vehicle like tractor. In the absence of such endorsement made liv gpo 4 could he said that the deceased Shekaragouda wns not hoidreg an valid licence Therefore, the question of indemnifying the owner of the vehicle namely insured does not arise. Therefore, it is argued that the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for workmen Compensation is liable to he set aside it is further argued that though the owner of the trw tor and frolle insured the same and the insurance policy was in forre as on the date of accident hut the vehicle in i hich stones were carried was being taken to the land belonging to the friend of respondent No.1 Therefore. respondent-I was not the owner of the land and the stones carried in the tractor and trolley for the purpose of ennstructinn of a tank in the land nf friend of respondentS I and his friend has not been examined The tract ir in q restion is used by the respondent- I for business purpose to transport the stones from quarry to the land where the tank being eonstnieted Therefore, the liahihfl fixed on the respondent appellant is totalb incorrect and illegal. F arther, he has argued that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has wrongh taken the income of the deceased as well as injured En the absence of salan certificates produced by the daimants in I-, all these 5 claim petitions it could be held that they were not coolies In outer to avoid payment of compensation respondentS I though filed a written statement hut not participated in the proceedings. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemrnfr the irspondent- 1 who has not furnished any infonnation with regard to the accident. It is argued that it is the duty of claimants to prove that the deceased Shekaregowda was holding valid driving licence and that the deceased were working under respondent No. I. Therefore he prays for setting aside the order of the Commissioner in so far as fastening of liability on it is concerned 6 On the other hand learned counsel for the cross objectors, submits that the vehicle in question belongs to the respondent No.1 and the deceased in WCA Nos. 10 11 13 & 19 as well as injured claimant in 46/2003 were working as driver and cnolics respectively who met uih an accident and four persons died on ac onnt of fatal injuries. The claimant in 46/2009 sustained grievous injuries. It is argued that insurance company has token the contention of deceased 1 was not holding and valid Ii evcc it s for them to prove thot the driver of the vehicle was uc t hnlding valid licence, Mere production of Annexuir RI said to have heep issued by Maduni, V1O is not valid ‘The ontents of AnnexnirRl cannot be believed in the absence of examination of its author. Therefore the appeals filed by the insurer of the vehick does not survive for consideration. The Commisioner for Workmen Compensation has rightly considered both docnmunta and oral evidence placed on record by both the parties in holding that deceased Shekaragowda wa holding valid driving licence and i as right in fastening the liability oi the insurer of the vehicle However th nmount awarded h the Commissioner is too P w, the Commissioner has not properly analysed the evidence planed on record and has not tiken to consideration the salary of the deceased emplo ees Then’foi e th cross objection tiled h the respondents (Laimants is to tin allowed 1w enhancing the compensation 7 Hovn hcerd the arguments of lqmed no ii sd for both parties and after peric’ng the records the point that arises for &mswieiotioo iv vi ti r t w ‘o’nmjssioner is jnstifled in 19 fastening the hahility on the appellant and whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is just and proper? 8 It is seen that on the date of accident, deceased Shekaragorcda *as the driver arid the appellant herein being the insurer of the vehicle has not disputed about the death of four per t ons including the driver and one person sustained grievous injuries. As on tht date of incident insurance policy was m foire. I have carefully examined the materials placed on record Of (nurse the claimants have taken up contention before the Thmmtssioner that the deceased as well as the mjured claimants were employed under owner of the vehicle is question at pan 3 of the claim petition it is averred that tractor and trolley in which they were transporting tones arid kadi for ronstruetion of hund for irrigation, at the repondent l’s friend’s land. It is argued that repsondenP I was cultivating the land on lease hasis. Of ‘-ourse no lease deed or no rent receipts produced by the claimants The polka — Ex. R2 in question clearly indicates that the same is a miscellaneous policy and huge nuount has been ‘0 collected under the various heads to cover the risk of 3rd nafl’ tractor as well as trolIe driver damage caused to the thin! part5 property and in addition Rs. l24/ was collected ahovc TP premium. This fact ha not been seriousI disputed. To show that deceased was not holding a valid driving licence, the appellant has produced AnnexureR1 issued by the RTO, Madurai. There are some corrections in Ex. R 1 Of course, thu appellant has made an attempt to summon the [ff0, Madurai In spift of the summons. RTO, Madumi failed to appear Therefore the contents of Ex. R I cannot he accepted and it should he held that the driving licence issued to the deceased Shekaragowda is genuine and thus it is to he held that the deceased Shekaragowda was holding a valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Of course, the appellant has examined the nificer of the insurance company. Aeconling to his evidence, policy Fx.P2 does not cover the risk of loader and unloader But consrlenng the fact that dci eased driver of the vehicle was holding driving licence No.1440/98 to drive [MV and Badge upto 2011 with driving hectic, Nn353/02 to drive the motor cycle. In view of the fact that respondenh I who was the ownei of the tractor and trailor admitted that the deceased were hamalies and driver and that the wire working under him in his vehit Ic and the stones being tninsporttd in the tractor and trolley with the help of his coolies i e, four deceased persons as well as injured. Considering the averments of the la 1 m petition, heing transported to eonstnict hund and irrigation tank in the land in whk h he was cultivating on lease basis Therefore, it is to be held that the deeeased as well as injured claimant are engaged by respondent I as coolies The tractor in question is used for agricultural purpose to construct hund and irrigation tank in the land. The son of the owner of the vehicle has appeared and filed written statement admitting that the deceased as isell as the injured were working itndr hun as driver and coolies, Therefore, as on the ‘late of accident, the insurance polie was in force which coven the risk of emploven working undr ow ncr of the vehicle who air ngaged in agricultural work Therefore. the liahilit3 fixed on the appellant is in accoalanee wit h law which does not call for interference. ‘F, 9 As far as cross objections are concerned, it is contended that the deceased as well as injured persons were getting higher income, the Commissioner has taken meagre amount of income to quantify the compensation Rut the claimants who claim that the deceased as well as the injured were getting higher income have not produced only documents to prove the same. Therefore, the Commissionet for Workmen Compensation has taken the monthly income of the deceased as well as the injured claimant as provided under the Minimiun Wages Act, which is in accordance with law The Commissioner after going through the materials placed hefore him has rightly quantified the compensation pay able to the claimants which do not call for any interference. 10 Accordingly the appeals as well as the cross objections filed by the appellant and the respective claimants axe hereby dismissed Sd/ JUDGE sp/