Banwari Lal Sharma, J. - (1.) The appellant- Insurance Company has preferred this civil misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2005 passed by learned Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Tonk in claim Case No. W.C.C.F. 29/2001 (Raja vs. Jadoo @ Ramsawroop And Ors.) whereby an award for Rs. 1,79,200/- along with interest @ 12 % per annum from 26th July, 2001 has been passed in favour of the deceased- respondent- Smt. Raja and against the appellantInsurance Company.
(2.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondent- deceased Smt. Raja wife of Ram Narayan filed a claim petition on 26.07.2001 against the appellantInsurance Company and respondent No.- 2 Jadoo @ Ramsawroop & No.- 3 Rajju Singh claiming compensation on account of loss suffered by her due to the death of her son Omprakash caused in an accident allegedly occurred on 10.06.2000 when he was working under the instructions of respondent No.- 2 Jadoo @ Ramsawroop & No.- 3 Rajju Singh on a trolly which was attached with the tractor bearing registration No. R.J.X. 1535, which at the time of alleged accident was being used for loading, transporting and unloading the soil. According to the respondent- deceased, when he was loading the soil on the trolly attached with the tractor, all of sudden the soil fell down on Omprakash, due to it he lost his life.
(3.) The appellant as well as respondent No. 2 & 3 filed their respective reply to the claim petition and it was averred by them that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent No. 2 & 3. It was further averred by respondent No. 2 & 3, registered owner of tractor that on the day of accident, tractor was not there on spot, rather it was in stationary position at the residence of insured respondent No.- 2. The appellant- Insurance Company also averred that the tractor trolly in question was neither registered nor insured with the appellant- Insurance Company at the time of alleged accident. It was further pleaded that by way of Insurance policy only the risk of the driver of the tractor was covered under the provisions of the Act and as the deceased was not a driver of the said tractor and no premium was charged by the appellant to cover the risk of any other person including the deceased, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.;