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. 28 of 2000 directing payment of compensation of Rs. 1,14,366. 60 to claimant-respondent no. 1. ( 2 ) THE claimant-respondent No. 1 is the widow of the deceased Laxman Barik. The case of the claimant is that her husband was working as a coolie in a tractor and trailer having registration Nos. OR-08 5076 and OR-08 5877 respectively owned by respondent No. 2. On 6. 4. 2000 while the deceased along with other labourers were engaged to load and unload fertile soil and to dump in the agricultural field of respondent No. 2, the offending tractor and trailer jumped heavily on the way near village Tukla due to rash and negligent driving of the said tractor. In view of the above, 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 in spite of service of notice did not appear and was set ex pane. The present appellant appeared and filed the written statement denying its liability for the payment of compensation. The Commissioner for 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 took place causing death of the deceased. The commissioner further found that the driver of the tractor had an effective and valid licence to drive the tractor and the vehicle was covered by the insurance policy. The commissioner also found that the deceased was getting Rs. 1,080 per month and has accordingly awarded Rs. 1,14,366. 60 in favour of the respondent No. 1. ( 4 ) MR. A. K. Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the judgment of the Commissioner on two grounds. The first ground taken by Mr. Mohanty is that when a trailer is attached to a tractor and the occupant of the trailer sustains injuries or dies due to an accident, the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay any compensation. The first ground taken by Mr. Mohanty is that when a trailer is attached to a tractor and the occupant of the trailer sustains injuries or dies 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 the evidence the claimant has not stated anything about the extent of dependency and, therefore, the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,14,366. 60 is without any basis. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that the occupant of a trailer in the event of an accident is entitled to compensation and the same is to be indemnified by insurance company, if the vehicle is covered by an insurance policy. So far as extent of dependency is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel that the claimant-respondent No. 1 was dependent on the income of the deceased in full. ( 5 ) SO far as first ground taken by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Nagashetty v. United India Insurance co. Ltd. , (2001) 8 SCC 56 : 2001 ACJ 1441 (SC), held as follows:"though under section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles 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 had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a 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. 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 taken by the learned counsel for appellant is concerned, it appears from the deposition of claimant-respondent no. 1 that she was dependent on the deceased. Moreover, there is no dispute that the wife of the deceased has filed a claim petition and there being nothing on record to show that the wife had any independent income. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence with regard to extent of dependency. Under the circumstances, i am of the view that the award passed by the Commissioner does not call for any interference. I, accordingly, do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.