( 1. ) THIS is an appeal under section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 25-10-1975 passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Indore, awarding compensation in favour of the claimant-respondents Nos. I, 2 and 3.

( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:-The claimant-respondents Nos. I, 2 and 3 submitted an application under section 22 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 23-2-1973 for award of compensation before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Indore, on the allegations that Bhura was husband of Smt. Fatmabai-claimant No. I and father of Saleem and raisa-claimants No. 2 and 3. Bhura was a workman employed as operator of Driller-Tractor No. RJQ 5735 by Jamnalal. On 14-11-1972, Bhura received personal injury by accident ar sing out and in the course of his employment. The injury so sustained by him resulted in death of Bhura on the spot. The cause of this injury was that Bhura was travelling from Bhilwara to burhanpur with the said Driller-Tractor as an operator as directed by jamnalal. At that time, Bhura was incharge of the Driller-Tractor which was loaded on a truck bearing registration No. RSL 4263 belonging to one smt. Gurcharan Kaur of Bhilwara. While so proceeding, the truck overturned on the road and while nearing Mhow in the District of Indore, M. P. and as a result thereof Bhura died on the spot. It was further averred that the applicants are dependents of the deceased workman Bhura who was employed on monthly wages of Rs. 350 and his age at the time of death Was over the age of 15 years. Notice of the accident was served on 22-1-1973. On these facts, a compensation in an amount of Rs. 9,000 was claimed under section 4 read with Schedule 4 of the Act. The New India Assurance company-appellant herein was impleaded, being insurer of the said tractor and the truck.

( 3. ) THE claim was resisted by Jamnalal inter alia on the grounds that bhura was not employed by him as operator on his tractor; that Bhura before his death some times used to come as a casual worker and was paid rs. 5 per day whenever he worked with him. Accordingly, Bhura was neither a workman nor an employee; that the tractor was to be sent to his camp at Nanded beyond Burhanpur, Bhura was directed to reach Burhanpur by Railway and not asked to go by the said tractor, and that the claimants are not entitled to award of any compensation.

( 4. ) THE Insurance Company appellant herein opposed the claim inter alia on the grounds that Bhura did not fall within the definition of workman given in the Act; that Bhura was not in employment of Jamnalal the opposite party and was not going with the tractor as his employee either; and that the insurance Company cannot be made liable under the terms of the Insurance policy.

( 5. ) AFTER recording evidence of the parties, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation in an amount of Rs. 9,000 besides interest and costs as specified in paragraphs No. 19 to 23 of the impugned order.

( 6. ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

( 7. ) IN this appeal, it was contended by Shri N. C. Behl, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that Bhura was not a workman as defined by Section 2 (h) of the Act; (2) that the learned Commissioner has wrongly decided the case on the hypothesis that the Driller-Tractor was on the road whereas in the application for claim, it has been stated that it was loaded on the truck and has also erred in treating item No. 2 of the Schedule 2 of the Act to apply to the case: (3) that since it has not been shown by the claimants that, Bhura was operating the tractor at the time when he met with the accident, no liability can be fastened on the appellant-Company having regard to the terms of the Insurance Policy Ex. P/l and having regard to the provisions of the Act read with those of sections 94-95 of the Motor Vehicles act and (