JUDGMENT
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation-cum-A.D.M., Nuapada in W.C. Case No. 27 of 2000 directing payment of compensation of Rs. 1,30,146/- to the Respondents 1 and 2.
2. The claimants-Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. The case of the claimants is that their son was working as a coolie in a Tractor and Trailer having Registration Nos. OR-08-7015 and OR-08-7016 respectively owned by Respondent No. 3. On 25.4.2000 while the deceased along with the labourers were moving in the said Tractor to carry out some work in Colony Para Road, the offending Tractor and Trailer jumped heavily on the way near Colony Para due to rash and negligent driving of the said Tractor. In view of the above jump, the deceased fell down and the back wheel of the Trailer ran over him as a result of which he not only sustained injuries but also succumbed to the injuries.
3. The owner of the Tractor inspite of service of notice did not appear and was set ex parte. The present appellant appeared and filed the written statement denying its liability for payment of compensation. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation referring to the evidence placed before it found that the deceased at the time of accident had been engaged as a workman by the owner of the Tractor and in course of employment the accident had been engaged as a workman by the owner of the Tractor and in course of employment the accident took place causing death of the Tractor had an effective and valid license to ride the Tractor and the vehicle was covered by an insurance policy. The Commissioner also found that the deceased was getting Rs. 1200/- per month and accordingly awarded Rs. 1,30,146/- in favour of the Respondents 1 and 2.
4. Shri A. K. Mohanty, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the judgment of the Commissioner on two grounds. The first ground taken by Shri Mohanty is that when a Trailer is attached to a Tractor and the occupants of the Trailer sustain injuries or die due to an accident, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation. The second ground taken by the Learned Counsel is that in evidence, the claimants have not stated any thing about the extent of dependency and, therefore, the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,146/- is without any basis. The Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that occupants of a Trailer in the event of an accident are entitled to compensation and the same is to be indemnified by the Insurance Company, if the vehicle is covered by an insurance policy. So far as extent of dependency of the deceased is concerned, it was contended by the Learned Counsel that the deceased was unmarried and the claimants were depended on his income.
5. So far as first ground taken by Shri Mohanty, the Learned Counsel for the appellant is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Nagashetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 56 held as follows :
“Though under Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicle but a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle. Merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor does not become ineffective; otherwise every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches of roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carried goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle…”
In view of the above, I do not find any substance in the first ground taken by the Learned Counsel for the appellant..
6. So far as second ground is concerned, the father of the deceased was examined as a witness for the claimants. True it is, he has stated nothing about the extent of dependency in his deposition but it is submitted that in the claim petition the claimants have stated that they were depended on the income of the deceased. The Commissioner has also not given any finding with regard to the extent of dependency. I am, therefore, of the material with regard to the extent of dependency the award of Rs. 1,30,146/-passed by the Tribunal was without any basis. In these circumstances, ordinarily the Court would have remitted the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh hearing. The claim petition was filed in the year 2000 and in the meantime more than four years have already passed. Remitting back the matter to the Commissioner will cause undue hardship and harassment to the claimants.
7. I therefore, dispose of this appeal in Lok Adalat spirit and in absence of any material to show the extent of dependency, I am of the view that compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand) will be just in the case considering the fact that the parties have come from remote area of the State and ordinarily the parties are wholly or partially depended on the income of the children in these areas.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of directing that the appellant shall pay compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only) instead of Rs. 1,30,146/- (Rupees one lakh thirty thousand one hundred forty six) as directed by the Commissioner as compensation. It appears from the order sheet that the award amount has been deposited before this Court. Out of said amount, Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees one lakh ten thousand only) with accrued interest thereon shall be paid to the claimants on proper identification and the balance be refunded to the appellant with accrued interest thereon.