The judgment established the principle that the insurance company's liability for compensation is determined by the terms of the insurance policy and relevant legal provisions.

1. The allegations found in the Claim Petition are as follows:

The first and second applicants are parents of Jalander aged 20 who was working under the first opposite party in a tractor bearing Regn.No.TN 20 M 8535. On 10.06.2005 while in the course of employment at about 12.00 when the tractor was coming from Kanambakkam to Konda Nellore, the vehicle going near Mugutha Chettiar land, the same was driven by the driver by name R.Vasu in a negligent manner and hence a jolt occurred resulting in Jalander falling down from the mud guard seat of the tractor and was run over by the tractor tyre. He was immediately taken to hospital where he was declared dead. He was earning a sum of Rs.4,000/-as wages per month under the employment of first opposite party. The case was registered in Crime No.161/2005 under Section 279 and 304A I.P.C., and the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the tractor. The vehicle was insured with the second opposite party which was valid from 08.07.2004 to 08.07.2005. The deceased was the only breadwinner of the family. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-is claimed as compensation. The third and fourth claimants are minor sister and brother of the deceased.

2. In the counter filed by the second opposite party it is stated that the allegations that the deceased was working under the first opposite party as a workman of the tractor and was getting wages of Rs.4,000/-per month. the deceased was travelling in the tractor only in the capacity of a friend of the first opposite party and as such, there is no employer and workman relationship between the first opposite party and the deceased. The age and income of the deceased, place, date and time of the alleged accident are denied. The deceased did not sustain employment injury during the course and out of employment under the first opposite party. The tractor was not insured with the second opposite party. It is further submitted that the deceased was not a workman under the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Workmens Compensation Act. The first opposite party has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

3. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, the first claimant, mother of the deceased Jalander alone was examined and nobody else came to the box on behalf of the second opposite party, namely, the appellant herein. The first opposite party, the owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. In the oral evidence, P.W.1 has stated that at the time of accident their son was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and he fell down due to the rashness of the driver. In her cross-examination she would say that Jalander was employed in the first respondents tractor as coolie, that he would be doing the agricultural work also by going in the tractor. The Commissioner has decided that the deceased was under the employment of the first opposite party and he died due to employment injury, which happened out of and in the course of employment and consequently made the insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

4. The appellant would contend that inasmuch as the trailor was not at all insured with the appellant and the deceased having gone in the trailer as a loadman, fell down from the trailor itself thereby met his death would not in any way make the insurance company responsible for compensation. In the Memorandum of Appeal it is stated that the trailor annexed to the tractor was not at all insured. Worthwhile it is to note that this fact was not pleaded before the Commissioner. It is settled that if any thing which was not pleaded before the Commissioner could not be raised by the insured for the first time in the appeal. It is decided in (SUBRAMANIA NAICKER V. KUPPUSWAMY) AIR 1989 Madras 297 = 1990 ACJ page 261 Madras. However, in order to show that the deceased was travelling by the tractor, the Insurance Company has not moved its little finger to examine an