The central legal point established in the judgment is that in a workmen's compensation case, the liability of the insurance company is determined based on the proof of the relationship of employer and employee, and the purpose of travel by the deceased persons.

JUDGMENT

1. These three appeals are filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability in respect of award passed in CWA/F/24+25+64/2009 dtd. 30/3/2011 on the file of Labour Officer, Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Gadag District, Gadag (for short, 'Commissioner').

2. Factual matrix of the case of the claimants who are claiming compensation as legal representatives of three deceased persons is that all the deceased persons were travelling in a tipper bearing Reg.No.KA-26/5901 belonging to respondent No.1-insured with appellant herein. One Prameshwarappa Betageri gave statement before the Mundaragi police stating that 15-20 persons were being carried in the said vehicle and after completing their road construction work near Kookanur accident took place.

3. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, examined PWs.1 to 3 in respective claim petitions. On the other hand, appellant-Insurance Company examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked document as Ex.R.1-copy of policy. The Commissioner after considering both the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petitions by awarding compensation. Hence, Insurance Company has prayed in all these appeals to set aside the judgement and award passed by the Commissioner.

4. Insurance Company raised substantiate questions of law that whether the Commissioner acted contrary to law in making the appellant liable to pay the compensation to the workman of one D.S.Hanchinal, the contractor who had not obtained any policy from the appellant and there was no any employer and employee relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the deceased persons. The Commissioner has acted lawfully in ignoring that the deceased persons were not workmen under the owner of the lorry and failed to take note contents of Ex.P.2.

5. Counsel for appellant in her argument vehemently contended that when there was no relationship of employer an employee and there was no policy coverage and work is also not in connection with vehicle and they have traveled as unauthorized passengers in the said vehicle, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. Counsel also relied upon judgement of Apex Court reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3591 in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata Shukla and Others , wherein it is held that once part of contents are admitted in evidence and party brings same on record cannot be permitted to contend that other contents contained in rest part thereof had not been proved and Apex Court set aside the finding of the High Court holding the driver guilty by ignoring FIR on the ground that FIR has not been legally proved. Counsel referring to this judgement, contends that Ex.P.2 has not been considered by the Commissioner.

7. Counsel also relied upon judgement reported in 2005-LAWS (KAR)-7-8 in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited, Gulbarga vs. Hanamanthappa , wherein also specific defence was taken that they are unauthorized passengers in the tractor-trailer and Tribunal directed to pay compensation and held that transportation of passengers in tractor-trailer is totally prohibited and there is no liability of insurer to pay the compensation. Counsel referring to this judgement, contends that in the case on hand also the deceased were travelling as unauthorized passengers and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents-claimants vehemently contends that respondent No.1 before the Commissioner has categorically admitted that the deceased persons were employees of him and they were also carried for road construction work and police have also recorded the further statement and all of them were working in the lorry and the judgements quoted by the Insurance Company are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand, wherein it is proved that they are unauthorized passengers and in the case on hand the Insurance Company has not proved that the decea