Appeal is by the insurer of a tractor challenging the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Raichur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commissioner’ for short) on the ground of liability.

2. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner, the substantial questions of law which arise for consideration in this appeal are:

i. Whether the finding of the Commissioner on liability in fastening same on the insurer of the tractor is sustainable in law?

ii. Whether the owners and the insurers of both the tractor and trailer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation?

iii. Whether compensation and interest awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation are in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?

iv. What order or award?

3. Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the insurer of tractor submits that deceased Urkundamma having travelled in the trailer her risk is not covered under the policy of the tractor and therefore, the insurer of the tractor is not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor and pay compensatio