K.M. Joseph, J.

Appellant is the second opposite party/the insurer in proceedings under S. 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). By the impugned order, the Commissioner has allowed the application and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 3,27,705/- with interest at 12% from the date of accident till the date of deposit. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Lal George and the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Commissioner has acted illegally in allowing the claim against the appellant. He would point out that the case of the applicant was that the deceased was employed as a workman of the first opposite party, he was travelling in a tractor, there was an accident, involving the tractor, as a result of which, the deceased fell from the tractor and he succumbed to the injuries. He would straight away submit that the insurer cannot be made liable as no premium has been paid in respect of the deceased. He would further submit that the employee would not come within any of the clauses in the proviso to S. 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He is neither a driver nor he is a conductor or ticket examiner within the meaning of the proviso to S. 147 and therefore the Commissioner has acted illegally in making the insurer liable.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that this is a case where the vehicle involved was not a mere tractor but it was a tractor-cum-trailor, as evident from a perusal of the policy itself. He would submit that a tractor-cum-trailor is a goods vehicle. He would submit that the records available in this case would show that when the tractor-cum-trailor was in motion, the accident took place and therefore being an employee, who was carried in the vehicle, which was a goods vehicle, he would come within the terms of S. 147 of the proviso. Still further, he would contend that the terms of the policy even otherwise provides for coverage of six employees under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant in reply would submit that as far as the contention of the applicant that, even without coverage under the Act policy, six employees would be covered under the Clauses contained in the contract of insurance is without any substance. He would point out that the policy of insurance, no doubt, contain such a clause. But he invited our attention to the schedule providing for payment of premium and he contended that no premium has actually been paid. According to him, the clause relied on by the applicant is really not applicable and it so happened that though not relevant to the case, such clauses have not been expressly deleted. He would further contend that having regard to the case of the applicant that the deceased suffered accident from a tractor and as a tractor is not a goods vehicle, the claim cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the appellant canvassed the following decisions before us. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others, , Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vedwati and Others. He also referred to a decision of a learned single Judge reported in Thankachan T. K. v. O. U. Geevarghese, 2009 (1) KHC 699. The learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sasi Vs. Saidali.

5. As far as the decision of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. V. Chinnamma and Others, is concerned, that was a case which arose under the Motor Vehicles Act The deceased used to carry vegetables. He purchased five bags of vegetables and loaded the same in a traitor of a tractor and he was travelling therein. He wanted to buy some more vegetables. Because of the negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, an accident occurred and he