Insurance Company's liability for employee compensation is upheld despite claims of contributory negligence and the absence of medical testimony for disability assessment.

1. Present Miscellaneous appeal under S.30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by appellant / Insurance Company being aggrieved by impugned award dated 6/6/2014 passed by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation and Labour Court No.1, Gwalior in case No. 5 / B / WCA / 2013 (PD), preferred by respondent No.1 / claimant, whereby, the application preferred by respondent No. 1 under S.4,10,11 and 12 of has been allowed and appellant - Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,66,784/- to respondent No. 1 alongwith interest.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on the fateful day of 25/8/2012, respondent No. 1 was working at the field / farm of respondent No. 2 when tractor vide registration No.M.P. 07 - H - 8632 got stuck in a pit and to pull out the tractor from the pit, another tractor was called for and tied to the tractor stuck in the pit with a rope. Driver Chatur Singh tried to drive the stranded tractor out of the pit, but somehow things could not move out in the right direction because tractor toppled and went turtle causing injury to respondent No. 1, who was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and suffered an injury in his spine which rendered him permanently and totally disabled. The tractor which caused the incident was insured with appellant - Insurance Company for the period 31st March, 2012 to 30th March, 2013; whereas, the date of incident is 25/8/2012, therefore, tractor was insured by the appellant - Insurance Company.

3. On the application / claim preferred by respondent No. 1 under S.4,10,11 and 12 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “Act of 1923”), appellant - Insurance Company and respondent No. 2 filed their respective replies. After framing of issues, evidence was led by the parties and after examining the respective pleadings, Commissioner, Employee's Compensation Act, Gwalior passed the impugned award dated 6/6/2014,therefore, appellant - Insurance Company is before this Court.

4. Vide order dated 9/10/2015, this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: -

“(i) Whether, the learned Commissioner erred in holding appellant liable merely for the reason that the policy covers WC to employee, overlooking the fact that the applicant was sitting on the bonnet and the tractor which is not having any carrying capacity, and the applicant himself being negligent not entitled for compensation by virtue of S.3 of the Employee's Compensation Act, and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act / Rules which prohibit carrying passenger on tractor ?

(ii) Whether the tractor is specified category of the vehicle separately defined under S.2(44) of the Motor Vehicles Act and whether a person holding a license of Light Motor Vehicle is entitled to have driven the tractor also ?

(iii) Whether, the learned Commissioner for Employee's Compensation and Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior erred in assessing the permanent disability to the extent of 100% as proved without the disability certificate being proved by the doctor issuing the same ?”

5. Regarding substantial question No. 1, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Regulation 28 of the Rules of Road Regulation, the travelling on the tractor; except the driver is not permissible. Regulation 28 reads as under: -

“Driver of tractors and goods vehicles. - A driver when driving a tractor shall not carry or allow any person to be carried on the tractor.”

Therefore, the risk of passenger travelling on the mudguard, which is no