1. Before the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation, Bagalkot, totally 5 claimants filed claim petitions bearing Nos.WCA.NF.194/2005, 195/2005, 196/2005 & 197/2005. The appellant herein was the respondent insurer, the respondents 1 to 4 herein were the claimants and the 5th respondent herein was the respondent insured before the Commissioner. The contentions are that one of the respondent by name Mr.Venkappa was the owner of the tractor-trailer bearing No.KA.24/t-2863-2864. The respondents/claimants claimed to be working as coolies under the said owner.

According to them on 23.9.2005 as per the directions of the employer-cum-owner of the tractor-trailer in question, travelled in the said tractor-trailer as coolies under him to fence stones on the ridge of the land of the employer. While they were travelling along with the fencing stones, when they reached the Budni K.D. village, because of a ditch, the tractor-trailer along with coolies fell into the ditch. As a result, all of them sustained grievous injuries. They were all first taken to primary Heath Centre at Hoskote and then to a specialist at Mudhol. According to them, the injuries sustained by them have resulted in permanent disability resulting in total loss of earning capacity. They also claimed that they were earning about Rs.4000/- per month as salary apart from Rs.25/-as bata every day.

2. As against this the 5th respondent herein, admits being the owner of the tractor-trailer in question, so also factum of all the claimants [respondents 1 to 4 herein] working as coolies under him and another claimant as driver in the said tractor-trailer. He admits the occurrence of the accident and also sustenance of injuries by the claimants. He further claims the tractor-trailer in question being insured with the appellant Insurance Company and seeks indemnifying him against the claims of the claimants.

3. So far as the appellant-insurer, none of the claimants were neither coolies nor the 5th respondent therein was a driver under the insured. He further denies the occurrence of the accident also. It is contended that none of the claimants sustained any injuries and all the averments regarding shifting them to the hospital at Budni K.D., etc., are denied. They also deny the earnings of the claimants and according to them, 5th claimant/driver did not have valid driving licence. The appellant/insurer further contended that it was not at all liable to pay any compensation and the coverage given to the parties was a special package insurance called Miscellaneous & Special Type of Vehicles Policy ‘B’ package by paying Rs.3,202/-, therefore, none of the workmen are covered.

4. The Commissioner after raising several points on the controversies, ultimately held that all the claimants sustained employment injuries arising out of and during the course of the employment. Finally, the Commissioner held that the insurer is liable to indemnify the owner as the tractor-trailer was a goods vehicle meant for carrying agricultural operations and all the claimants being coolies under the owner, were proceeding towards the land of the owner in respect of agricultural operations i.e., fencing the ridge with the stones. The driver of the tractor had also produced valid licence as on the date of the accident. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, ultimately the Commissioner depending upon the nature of injuries, percentage of disability and the income of each of the claimant, proceeded to assess the compensation and directed the insurer to pay the said amount. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer has approached this Court in these appeals.

5. The award of the Commissioner is challenged so far as four employees/coolies except the 5th claimant referred in the award of the Commissioner, who was a driver under the owner of the vehicle.

6. The contention of the insurer/appellant in all the appeals is the Special Policy issued to the owner as stated above covers the risk of o