( 1 ) SINCE a common question of law is involved in all these appeals, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order. At the outset, we intend to notice that these appeals are posted before us in view of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court dated 15-7-2004. The learned single Judge, while referring the matter tor consideration and decision of this Court has stated, that, since on important question of law is involved in these appeals, the matter requires to be considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court.

( 2 ) THE appellant in these appeals is common the respondents are different. The appellant is an Insurance Company. The respondents are the wife and children of one late Sri mookappa in W. C. No. 471/99, injured Sri mallikarjuna in W. C. No. 343/99, Sri hanumanthappa in W. C. No. 344/99, Sri siddaiah in W. C. No. 345/99 and Sri Sarma appaiah in W. C. No. 346/99.

( 3 ) THE brief facts are : the date of accident was 5-2-1999. The vehicle that was involved in the accident was a tractor bearing registration No. KA-35 M-851 and a trailer bearing registration No. MYY 7100. The deceased and the injured persons were the employees of one Sri D. Laxman, who is the owner of the tractor-trailer. It is the tractor alone, which was insured with the appellant and the trailer was not insured.

( 4 ) THE wife and children of late Sri mookappa, the injured persons Mallikarjuna, hanumanthappa, Siddaiah, Sanna Appaiah, had filed claim petitions before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Beliary district, Beliary. After registering the claims, the Commissioner had issued notice to the owner of the tractor-trailer and the Insurance company. The owner had not disputed with regard to the employment of the coolies, who were travelling in the trailer, but had denied this liability to pay any compensation, since the tractor had been insured with the Insurance Company.

( 5 ) THE Insurance Company, apart from others, had taken up the plea before the Commissioner that it is only the tractor, which was insured and the trailer was not insured and therefore, the claim made by the wife and children of the deceased and the injured persons in the accident requires to be rejected. The Commissioner, after recording the evidence of the parties, has come to the conclusion that since the tractor was registered, the appendage to the tractor, namely, the trailer in which the deceased and injured persons were travelling are entitled for compensation and accordingly, has quantified the compensation payable by the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the commissioner, the appellant is before us in these appeals.

( 6 ) SRI. Krishna Swamy, the learned Counsel for the appellant would submit, that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 the tractor and the trailer both requires to be insured and in the present case, since the trailer was not insured and the cooiies of the owner, namely. Sri D. Laxman, who were travelling in the trailer are not entitled for payment of compensation by the Insurance Company. In support of that contention, the learned Counsel relies on the view expressed by the learned judges of this Court in the case of Oriental insurance Company Ltd. v. N. Chandra-shekaran and others, ILR 1996 Kant 2157 and national Insurance Company Limited v. Thirakappa Ramappa Itagi and another, ILR 2001 Kant 3037.

( 7 ) PER contra, Sri S. P. Shankar, learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has taken us through the provisions of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('act' for short) and then would contend, that though the trailer is not insured, that in view of Sections 146 and 147 of the Act. the compensation requires to be paid by the Insurance Company, since the tractor was insured. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel has taken us through the observations made by the Apex court in the case of M/s. Natwar Parikh and company L