V. JAGANNATHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE question involved in this appeal is whether the insurance company will be liable if a person sitting on the plough attached to a tractor sustains injuries. The Commissioner for workmen's compensation has answered the said question in the affirmative, giving rise to this appeal by the insurance company. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel fare the appellant Sri A. N. Krishna Swamy, referring to the undisputed facts of this case, has submitted that it is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased Kenchappa Teli was sitting on the plough which was attached to the tractor when the accident occurred on 19-5-2001 and such being the case, the appellant-insurance company could not have been made liable. It is further submitted that first of all, the deceased was not found travelling in the tractor and secondly, only a tractor without trailer being attached to it, cannot be called as a goods vehicle and therefore, the order of the Commissioner is unsustainable in law. ( 3 ) THE above contentions put forward by the appellant's Counsel deserve to be accepted. The vehicle that was involved in the accident was only a tractor and there was no trailer attached to it. It is a settled law that tractor along with trailer together constitutes a goods vehicle and not otherwise. The deceased was found sitting on the plough and therefore, it cannot be said that he was travelling in the tractor. ( 4 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is set aside insofar as putting the liability on the appellant-insurance company is concerned. The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant. - .