Judgment :- 1. The legality and correctness of the order passed by the commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, Davanagere, in Case No.WCA/CWC/CR-37/2004 DATED 22/8/2005 is called in question by the appellant-Insurance company. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. 3. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder: Respondent No.2- B Thimmanna is the owner of a tractor and trailer bearing No.KA-17/T-7902-03. The said vehicle has been insured with the appellant–Insurance Company and a policy has been issued by the appellant-Insurance company covering the risk of a paid driver and five workmen. Respondent No.1 lodged a claim petition before the commissioner for Workmen’s compensation, Davanagere, claiming compensation on the ground that on 9.12.2002 at about 7.00 a.m, he was discharging his duty as a Coolie under the 2nd respondent-Thimmanna and on that day, along with another worker, he proceeded to the garden land of 2nd respondent in the tractor and trailer belonging to the 2nd respondent. After reaching the land, the tractor and trailer was stationed in a portion of the land. The claimant climbed a coconut tree in order to pluck the matured coconuts. While doing so, he fell from the tree, which resulted in multiple fractures. He was immediately shifted to a private Hospital, Harihar, and on the same day, on the advise of the Doctor he was shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, where he was admitted as in-patient upto 23/12/2003 and thereafter between 27/01/2003 and 31/01/2003. On the ground that the 1st respondent has become permanently disabled due to paraplegia, he is unable to discharge his duties as a Coolie and he is also unable to take care of himself and is incapable of attending to his day to day affairs. Therefore, the claim petition was lodged against the owner of the tractor and trailer and the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the 1st respondent sustained injuries during the course of his employment and the appellant being the insurer is liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the claim petition was allowed. Therefore, the claim petition was lodged against the owner of the tractor and trailer and the appellant-Insurance Company on the ground that the 1st respondent sustained injuries during the course of his employment and the appellant being the insurer is liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the claim petition was allowed. The appellant, who was the 2nd respondent before the Commissioner, filed detailed objections on the ground that the liability cannot be saddled on the appellant on the ground that the 1st respondent-claimant did not sustain injury on account of the use of the tractor and trailer while discharging his duty as a Coolie during the course of his employment. According to him, if the 1st respondent, as a coolie of the 2nd respondent, had climbed the coconut tree to pluck the coconuts and as a result of a sudden fall from the tree, sustained injuries and at best he may claim compensation against the owner, but not against the Insurance Company, since the Insurance Company has not issued a policy covering the risk of a Coolie during the course of his employment. According to the appellant, the liability of the appellant/Insurance Company would be only if the Coolie of the 2nd respondent sustained injury while using vehicle is any and the accident occurs. Therefore, the appellant requested the Commissioner to dismiss the claim petition against it. Respondent No.2, who is the owner of the tractor and trailer, did not dispute his relationship with the claimant-1st respondent and the cause for the 1st respondent sustaining injury. The Commissioner, after recording the evidence, has awarded compensation of Rs.3,14,596/- along with the interest thereon and fixed the liability on the Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The main contention of Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao is that the Commissioner committed an error in fixing the liability on the Insurance court without understanding the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M V Act’) and the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The main contention of Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao is that the Commissioner committed an error in fixing the liability on the Insurance court without understanding the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M V Act’) and the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company. According to him, the policy has been issued by the appellant-Insurance Company in favour of the 2nd respondent to his tractor and trailer and that respondent No.1, as a Coolie of the 2nd respondent, did not suffer any injury on account of the accident caused by the tractor and trailer. According to him, the 1st respondent sustained injuries on account of fall from a coconut tree in the garden land of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the liability fixed has to be set aside. To support his arguments, he has relied upon the provisions of Sections 143, 146 and 147 of the M V Act and therefore he requests the court to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contends that the tractor and trailer was used by the 2nd respondent to give a drop from the 2nd respondent’s place to his land and that the 1st respondent was employed by the 2nd respondent to pluck the coconuts from the trees and load the same into the tractor and unload the same at the residence of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, he contends that while using the vehicle of the 2nd respondent, the accident occurred and that the 1st respondent was employed by the 2nd respondent only as a Coolie in the tractor and trailer as a loader and un-loader. Therefore, the liability fixed by the Commissioner has to be confirmed. 7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us in this appeal is: Whether the commissioner is justified in fixing the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company? 8. It is not in dispute that the appellant-Insurance Company has issued the policy to the 2nd respondent – owner of tractor and trailer. 7. Having heard the counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered by us in this appeal is: Whether the commissioner is justified in fixing the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company? 8. It is not in dispute that the appellant-Insurance Company has issued the policy to the 2nd respondent – owner of tractor and trailer. As per Section 143 of the M V Act, any claim for compensation in respect of a death or permanent disablement of any person under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 resulting from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 140 of the M V Act is bound to be satisfied by the appellant-Insurance Company. Therefore, what is required to be considered by us in this appeal is: Whether the claim of the 1st respondent would fall under Section 143 of the M V Act and whether the injury sustained by the 1st respondent-claimant can be referred to the injuries referred to in sub-Section (1) of Section 140 of the Act? 9. Section 140(1) of the M V Act reads as under: “where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions of this section” 10. Admittedly, in the instant case, the 1st respondent-claimant has not suffered any permanent disability from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. If the 1st respondent-claimant had sustained any injury or a permanent disablement on account of using a motor vehicle, in such event, the 1st respondent can make claim under Section 143 of the M V Act. Therefore, what is required to considered in this appeal is: How the accident occurred and whether the 1st respondent has sustained a permanent disablement on account of an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle? 11. As could be seen from the pleadings, the 1st respondent has categorically stated that on the unfortunate day, he along with other loaders, went to the garden land of the 2nd respondent in the tractor and trailer of the 2nd respondent. 11. As could be seen from the pleadings, the 1st respondent has categorically stated that on the unfortunate day, he along with other loaders, went to the garden land of the 2nd respondent in the tractor and trailer of the 2nd respondent. After reaching the land, the tractor and trailer was parked and thereafter he climbed the coconut tree in order to pluck the coconuts. While doing so, he fell from the tree and sustained injuries, which resulted in paraplegia. From the pleadings of the claimant-1st respondent, it is clear that he has sustained injuries not on account of the accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, but it is on account of fall from the coconut tree. Merely because the 2nd respondent has brought the claimant-1st respondent and the other loaders from his residence to the land, it cannot be said that the permanent disablement has been caused to the 1st respondent on account of use of the motor vehicle. The Commissioner, without examining the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 140 of the M V Act and so also the provisions of Section 143 of the M V Act, and without considering the background under which policy had been issued by the appellant and that respondent No.1 did not sustain injuries on account of the accident caused while using the motor vehicle, therefore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner fixing the liability on the Insurance Company has to be set aside. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order and award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere, dated 22/08/2005 in case no. No.WCA/CWC/CR-37/2004 is hereby set aside, so far as it relates to the appellant-Insurance Company. The amount, if any, in deposit by the appellant-Insurance Company is ordered to the refunded to the Insurance Company. The parties to bear their own costs.