ORDER

1. Appellant / Insurance Co. has filed this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, (Labour Court), Ujjain in Case No.23/2002 W.C.F whereby disputing its liability to indemnify the amount of compensation on the ground that the thresher in which the deceased got injured and died was not insured beyond the scope of damage to the thresher. In other words there was no third party insurance for thresher, thus the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

2. Short facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 to 7 are the legal heirs of the deceased Vikram. Vikram was employed with the owner of the vehicles which were insured by the appellant / Insurance Company, ie., tractor bearing registration No.MP. KA 2463 as well as the thresher. On 30.9.2001 in the night Vikram was working on the thresher. He was loading Soyabean in the thresher machine. The said thresher machine was being operated by the aforesaid tractor. While working on the machine an accident happened inasmuch as the hand of the Vikram was sucked into the machine because of which he sustained grievous injuries on his hand and head and resulting to those injuries he has died.

3. The respondents No.1 to 7 filed claim petition in terms of the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act (now Employee's Compensation Act). The learned Labour Court after recording evidence in the matter concluded that Vikram at the time of accident was employed as a workman on the tractor having registration No.MP. KA 2463. The Labour Court then decided the issue regarding accident on 30.9.2001 in favour of the claimants holding that Vikram has died during work in the course of employment. It further decided that the deceased was earning Rs.2400/- per month at the time of his death and after concluding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in terms of Section 4A of the Employee's Compensation Act direction was given for payment of compensation of Rs.2,68,000/- with an interest of 9% per annum.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Co. submits that the thresher was not insured for third party. It was only a limited Insurance Policy for insurance cover of thresher and nothing beyond that. He by referring to Exhibit D/3 the Insurance Policy of the thresher submits that in the said policy it has clearly been spelled out that it is only thresher insurance policy covering thresher of 1999 model for which an amount of Rs.25,000/- was sum insured. He further refers to Exhibit D/4, which is the receipt of payment of Rs.25,000/-. He then goes on to refer Exhibit D/5, which is thresher insurance scheme. He points out in the said scheme that scope of cover does not include accident to third party. He further points out that additional cover for bodily injury, injury to workman / employee of the insured engaged to operate the thresher. He points out that no premium for additional coverage in terms of the said policy at 25% extra was paid. As such the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. He points out the findings of the Labour Court as contained in para 23 of the impugned order in which the Court even after referring to Exhibit D/3 and Exhibit D/4 and the witness Arun Kevaliya has not considered the same in its right perspective and still held the Insurance Company liable for payment. He further points out that for covering the third party there must have been contract which is completely absent in the present case looking to thresher Insurance Policy Exhibit D/3. He lastly submits that there is no automatic interest like in the case of Motor Vehicles Act. In the present case Insurance Policy did not provide for payment of interest thus the learned Labour Court could not have awarded interest on the amount of compensation in case the Court finds that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel for