This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 19.10.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.963/2011 on the file of

the Fast Track-II and MACT, Shomoga (8the Tribunal9 for short).

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No3.

3.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the

insured is that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening

the liability on the insured even though the policy was in force

and the same is also admitted by RW1 and the deceased

Durgamma was travelling as a loader in the said vehicle hence,

the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation hence,

the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the deceased

4

Durgamma was travelling in the tractor as a passenger but the

fact is that she was working as a coolie and travelling in the

tractor in the course of agricultural employment to load the mud

to the garden of the appellant and RW1 who is an Administrative

Officer during the course of his cross-examination, he admitted

that in terms of policy, respondent No.1 is liable to pay the

compensation in the event of death of any employee in the

course of agricultural employment. In terms of Ex.P4, the

complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased Durgamma

which clearly reveals that she was travelling in the tractor for the

purpose of loading the mud and inspite of the said contention,

the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that

she was a passenger, not an employee.

4.

The counsel appearing for the appellant brought to

notice of this Court the copy of the document at Ex.R1-Policy

and contend that a separate premium is collected in respect of

WC employee hence, the Tribunal ought not to have exonerated

the liability of the Insurance Company. Hence, it requires

interference of this Court.

5

5.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

Insurance Company would contend that policy which is marked

as Ex.R1 is liability only policy, hence, the Insurance Company is

not liable to pay any compensation. The counsel further contend

that even though the premium is collected for WC employee, the

same is applicable only at the time of loading and unloading and

not atn the time travelling in the tractor. Hence, the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties and also on perusal of the material available

on record, particularly the document at Ex.P2-FIR, wherein, it is

mentioned that the driver of the tractor and trailer drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner as a result, the deceased

fell down from the trailer and contents of Ex.P4-complaint

discloses that the deceased was travelling in the said tractor

when an accident was occurred and immediately she was shifted

to the District Mc Gann hospital and in the cross-examination of

PW1, he says that the said Durgamma was proceeding in the

tractor to attend the work of Lokeshappa but he does not know

6

what was the work and he does not remember whether his

mother was going to attend the loading work. On the other

hand, the respondents examined one witness as RW1 who in his

evidence, he says that the said tractor cannot be used for hire or

carrying any passengers and the said vehicle is registered as a

non-transport vehicle and therefore, it cannot carry any person

to load or unload the goods and they have not covered any

employees of the owner under the Act except the driver and the

rest of coolies and other employees of the owner is not required

to be covered compulsorily under the Act and taken the premium

only for the third parties and own damages. The witness was

also

subjected

for

cross-examination

and

in

the

cross-

examination, he admits that the policy was in force and also

admits that the driver was also having the driving licence and he

admits that when the vehicle was used for agricultural purpose

at that time, the vehicle met with an accident, hence, the