Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—These two appeals filed under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the parties jointly stated that common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals.

2. Tractor bearing registration No. UP-25-B/8706 owned by the respondents No. 2 to 4 jointly was insured with the present appellant for own goods. The owners had employed two labourers, namely, Rakesh Kumar S/o Buddh Sen and Rakesh Kumar s/o Bihari Lal. The owners on 25th November, 1995 send the tractor alongwith aforesaid two labourers to bring sugarcane and when the tractor reached on Brijpuri railway crossing, a coming train hit the tractor which caused fatal injuries to aforesaid two labouers. They died during the course of employment and each one of them was getting Rs. 1,800/- per month as wages. This led to filing two claim petitions being Case Nos. 49/WCA/99 and 50/WCA/99 before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

3. Therein, besides the owners, Insurer-appellant herein were impleaded as respondents in the claim proceedings. They contested the claim petitions by filing separate replies. It was not disputed by the Insurance Company that the tractor in question was not insured with them on the fateful day. They came out with the case that the driver of the tractor was not holding valid and effective driving license. The insurance policy covers the risk of paid driver of the tractor only and it does not cover the risk of labourers of the said tractor. It was further pleaded that registration certificate of the vehicle in question would show that the sitting capacity of the said vehicle is only one.

4. The claimants led evidence in support of their claim petitions. They were cross examined by the Insurer. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,01,600/- in Case Nos. 49/WCA/99, Smt. Usha Devi v. M/s New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others and Rs. 1,90,61/- in Case No. 50/WCA/99, Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. M/s New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, as compensation amounts.

5. Shri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Insurer is not liable to indemnify the owners of the tractor as two labourers were unauthorizedly travelling in the tractor. Tractor was being driven against terms of insurance policy. He also submitted that the tractor is ‘goods vehicle’ and insurer is not liable to pay compensation in respect of such labourers whose risk was not covered under insurance policy. It was also submitted that the registration certificate of the insurance policy of the tractor itself shows that the sitting capacity of the said vehicle was only one and accordingly the insurer took insurance of one paid driver amounting to Rs. 15/- only which is mentioned in the insurance policy.

6. In reply, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the insurance policy was a comprehensive insurance policy as found by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner also, the insurer is liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants notwithstanding anything. Accident occurred during the course of employment and the labourers were on duty on the fateful day. These two unfortunate labourers were in the tractor. They were on duty and were carrying out the order of their employer to bring sugarcane on the tractor. It was also submitted that only such pleas are available to the insurer which are available to the owners under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

7. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. At the very outset, it may be noted that on the pleadings of the parties, Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner had framed six issues for determination. All issues have been decided in favour of the claimants-respondents. The dispute sought to be raised in the present appeal is with regard to the liability of the insurer to indemnify the owners of the