IMPORTANT POINT
The insurance company is liable for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act when an employee-employer relationship is established, regardless of the driver's licensing status or the nature of the vehicle's use at the time of the accident.

ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.) :

1. By way of the present misc. appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company challenges the mendacity of the judgment/award dated 18.01.2012 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Chittorgarh in Case No.WCC/F/51/09 whereby the appellant-Insurance Company has been held liable to make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,42,810/-to the respondents Nos.1 to 6.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondents Nos.1 to 6 filed a claim petition under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (‘the Act of 1923’) before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Chittorgarh (‘the Commissioner’) against the appellant-Insurance Company and respondents Nos.7 and 8 inter alia stating therein that on 20.02.2009 at 5.00 AM, respondent No.7 (driver of the tractor bearing registration No.RJ-09-RA-3233), was moving from Makanpura to Bharbada for loading sand/ soil and Narain (since deceased) was sitting on the tractor as labourer but due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.7, Narain fell down and came under the wheel of the tractor, resulting in his death on the spot. The deceased was allegedly 16 years of age at the time of incident and used to earn Rs.4,000/-per month and therefore, the family members (claimants) claimed for compensation.

3. A reply came to be filed by the Insurance Company denying the contention in the claim petition regarding age of the deceased as 16 years and submitted that he was a child aged 13-14 years and was traveling on the aforesaid tractor as an unauthorized occupant. It was also submitted that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It was also contended that the said tractor was insured under a Farmer Package Policy under which, an owner can use the tractor for his own agriculture purposes, but at the time of accident the said tractor was being used as a commercial vehicle which is violative of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, craved dismissal of the claim petition.

4. As per pleadings of both the parties, the Commissioner framed four issues which are as follows:-

^^1- vk;k e`rd ukjk;.k vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 ds okgu VsªDVj ftldk uEcj 09vkj, 3233 Fkk ij cgSfl;r etnwj fu;ksftr Fkk rFkk fnukad 20@2@2009 dks fu;ksftr ds nkSjku o fu;kstu ds dkj.k ?kfVr nq?kZVuk esa mldh e`R;q gqbZ\

2- vk;k e`rd dh ekfld etnwjh 4000@& :i, izfrekg Fkh rFkk mldh mez 16 o"kZ Fkh\

3- vk;k chek dEiuh viuh vkifRr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij {kfriwfrZ vnk djus ds fy, mRrjnk;h ugha gS\

4- vuqrks"kA^^

5. In support of the claim petition, 3 witnesses were examined and some documents were exhibited. On behalf of the Insurance Company, statement of one Vijay Kumar Bandi was recorded and one document i.e. Insurance Policy (Ex.A/1) was produced in evidence. Besides this the Insurance Company also examined one Lalit Singh and one more document was exhibited in evidence.

6. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner, Chittorgarh passed the judgment/award dated 18.01.2012 while entitling claimants an amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,42,810/-along with interest @ 9% per annum, Rs.2,500/-under Funeral Expenses and Rs.50,000/-as penalty upon the respondent No.7-Pratap Singh. Thus, being dissatisfied of the same, the respondents/claimants have preferred the present misc. appeal.

7. Learned counsel representing the appellant-Insurance company submits that the Commissioner, Chittorgarh has seriously erred in passing of the impugned judgment/award and also in allowing the claim petition of the claimants as the above numbered tractor was insured with the appellant-Insurance company under Farmer Package Policy for owner’s agricultural work only but at the time of the untoward incident, the tractor was used as a commercial vehicle, which is violative of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. He further submits that while issuing the insurance policy, premium of risk of driver was c