JUDGMENT Sreedhar Rao. K. J. The question of law is, when the tractor and trailer are insured by two different Companies, whether both the Companies are liable to pay compensation or one of the company is liable to pay compensation? 2. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident. MFA 4784/ 2006 is filed by the insurer. MFA 3911/06 is filed by the claimants contending that the computation of income by the Commissioner for Workmen Compen- sation is contrary to the evidence on record. 3. The tractor belongs to respondent No.3 and insured with the appellant. The trailer belongs to the respondent No.4 insured with the respondent No.5 (appellant in MFA 4784/06). 4. It is the contention of the appellant that the tractor by itself does not constitute goods vehicle. One Chennegowda, an inmate of the trailer, died in the accident. Respondents 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased who made claim before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tractor by itself does not constitute goods vehicle. The trailer does not belong to the insured-respondent No.3. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compen- sation. It is further argued that the insurer’s liability will arise only when the tractor and trailer are owned by one and the same person notwithstanding that they are insured with different insurance companies. 5. The facts disclose that the trailer was lent by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.3. When the tractor is attached with a trailer, it constitutes goods vehicle. The tractor although belonging to respondent No.4 is lent to the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 was using both the tractor and trailer for his activity i.e. transporting stone crushing machine. The deceased was employed by the respondent No.3. The accident occurred in the course and out of the employment. Therefore, we are of the view that notwithstanding the tractor does not belong to the respondent No.3 and insured with the respondent No.5, when the trailer, validly registered and insured, is used by respondent No.3 both the owners are equally liable and consequently, the insurer of both the vehicles are liable to pay the compensation. 6. Accordingly, point of law is answered. The Appeal (MFA 4784/06) is partly allowed as indicated above. 6. Accordingly, point of law is answered. The Appeal (MFA 4784/06) is partly allowed as indicated above. The amount in deposit to be transferred to the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation for payment and any amount found in excess shall be refunded to the appellant-insurer. 7. In MFA 3911/06, the appellants-claimants have not produced any satisfactory evidence to prove the daily wages. The assessment of daily wages by the Commissioner of the Workmen is sound and proper and does not call for interference. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimants is dismissed.