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 compensation to the claimants. The Commissioner without considering this has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurer of the tractor. Without prejudice to the said contention and relying upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Boregowda and others reported in ILR 2008 KARNATAKA 64 he submits liability has to be fastened on the insurers of both the tractor and trailer equally. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by modifying the judgment and award of the Commissioner on liability.

4. Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty, learned counsel appearing for the insurer of trailer submits as per the contents of the complaint lodged to the police, the deceased Urkundamma was an employee of one Rudragowda, a retired Tahasildar, as such, there is no relationship of employer and employee either between the owner of tractor namely Somashekar Gowda and deceased Urkundamma or between the owner of the trailer namely Basanna Gowda and the deceased. The deceased having travelled as an unauthorized passenger in the trailer, her risk is not covered under the policy of the trailer. Considering this the Commissioner was justified in not fastening the liability on the insurer of the trailer. The owner of the trailer namely Basanna Gowda having insured his trailer along with a tractor owned by him under single/common policy could not have allowed his trailer to be moved with the tractor of someoneelse viz., Somashekar Gowda and having done so, the insurer of the trailer is not liable to indemnify him and pay compensation to the claimants as the policy cannot be detached from the tractor and trailer belonged to Basanna Gowda. She further submits that Somashekar Gowda has admitted that the deceased was his employee engaged for doing work in connection with his tractor, as such, there is no relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the owner of the trailer. On that ground also, the liability could not be fastened on the insurer of the trailer. Therefore, she prays for dismissing the appeal.

5. Sri Basavaraj R. Math, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of Basanna Gowda owner of trailer submits that insuring of tractor and trailer belonged to Basanna Gowda under single policy and thereafter allowing the trailer to be moved along with the tractor belonged to someoneelse does not amount to violation of terms of policy under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act which absolves the insurer of the trailer from liability. According to him, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the insurers of both the tractor and trailer are equally liable to pay compensation awarded by the Commissioner.

6. Sri Veeranagouda, learned counsel appearing for the owner of t