The insurance company has filed this appeal, assailing the order dated 25.07.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal, ("W.C.Commissioner" for short) in W.C.No.305/2005 on the point of liability.

2. It is not in dispute that the first respondent- claimant sustained injuries while he was performing his duties as a 'hamal' in respect of tractor-trailer bearing No.KA-37/T-8084 and 8085 on 23/06/2005.

3. It is the case of the first respondent-claimant that on 23/06/2005 while he was discharging his duties as a hamal/coolie in respect of the aforesaid tractor-trailer, while he was bringing a load of firewood to Koppal, when the said vehicle reached Chilavadagi Village, the driver of the tractor applied sudden brake to the tractor. As a result, the first respondent fell down and he sustained grievous injuries on his right hand and other parts of the body. He was shifted to the Government Hospital at Koppal, where he was given first-aid treatment and thereafter he was referred to KMC Hospital, Hubli, where he was an inpatient. Contending that he had sustained loss of earning capacity on account of permanent disability, he filed the claim petition before the W.C. Commissioner at Koppal, seeking compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The claim petition was contested by the insurance company.

4. In support of his case, the claimant let-in his evidence as PW1 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P-9. While respondents did not let-in any evidence, but have produced two documents which were marked as Ex.R2-1 and R2-2.

5. On the basis of the said evidence, the W.C.Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.1,04,228/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and fastened the liability on the owner and insurer to satisfy the award. Being aggrieved by the fastening of the liability on the insurance company, this appeal has been filed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the insurer and the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant and perused the material on record as well as the lower court records.

7. It is contended on behalf of the insurance company that the first respondent-claimant was travelling on the mud-guard of the tractor. As a result of the sudden application of brake by the driver of the tractor, the first respondent fell down from the tractor. All documentary evidence point to the fact that the first respondent fell down from the tractor. The trailer was loaded with firewood. The first respondent having sat on the tractor, there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy issued in respect of the tractor and trailer. The risk of an employee sitting on the mudguard of a tractor is not covered under the policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to satisfy the award as no person other than a driver is entitled to travel on the tractor. He, therefore, contended that W.C. Commissioner was not right in fastening the liability on the insurer.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supporting the order of the W.C. Commissioner, has stated that the trailer was filled with firewood. The evidence on record does not disclose as to whether the first respondent was sitting on the tractor. On the other hand, the evidence of the claimant is that he fell from the vehicle. The vehicle is the tractor and trailer. It is not established that he fell from the tractor or that the first respondent was sitting on the tractor. Therefore, the W.C. Commissioner was right in holding that the first respondent is entitled to compensation under the provisions of the W.C. Act as the latter Social Welfare Legislation meant to compensate victims of road accidents who are employees. He, therefore, would submit that there is no merit in this appeal.

9. In reply, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has relied upon decisions of this court to contend that under Regulation 28 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, the driver of the tract