Judgment :- 1. Second respondent insurance company in CR.No.59/2006 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Tumkur has come up in this appeal challenging the order dated 28.8.2009 passed therein. Earlier when this appeal had come up for admission instead of admitting the same notice was ordered and lower court record was called for to consider the appeal for final hearing. Accordingly, when this matter came up today though it is listed for admission, since the lower court record is received and respondent/claimant is also duly served, with the consent of counsel for both parties the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are: First respondent herein who was claimant before Commissioner is said to have suffered certain injuries in an accident which has taken place on 21.1.2002 at about 2.30 p.m. on N.H. involving tractor trailer bearing No.KA-06/A-91 and A.1758. The undisputed facts in this appeal are that 2nd respondent herein, namely Thangaraju, who is 1st respondent before Commissioner is owner of aforesaid tractor trailer. The said tractor trailer is insured with 2nd respondent before Commissioner, appellant herein. It is not in dispute that said tractor trailer met with an accident on 21.1.2002 on N.H. 4 while it was carrying sized stones from Muddakkanhalli quarry. 3. On going through the grounds of appeal the substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal are. 1) Whether Commissioner was justified in accepting that claimant Ranganatha was working as loader and unloader under Thangaraju in tractor trailer bearing No. KA-06/A-01 and A-1758? 2) Whether Commissioner has properly appreciated the evidence available on record before considering the petition filed by claimant seeking awarding of compensation? 4. Heard the counsel for appellant and respondent/claimant. Perused the grounds of appeal, pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record in the light of the finding of Commissioner in the order impugned. On reappreciation of the same this Court answer the aforesaid substantial questions of law in the negative for the following: REASONS The lower court record secured from the office of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation discloses that claim petition filed by claimant is the second claim proceedings initiated by claimant. First of that was filed in MVC.No.451/2002. Admittedly, as on the date of accident claimant Ranganatha was a minor aged about 17 years. First of that was filed in MVC.No.451/2002. Admittedly, as on the date of accident claimant Ranganatha was a minor aged about 17 years. Claim petition in MVC.No.451/2002 was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, wherein it was contended that Ranganatha was a vegetable and milk vendor and also an agriculturist. It was stated therein that on 21.1.2002 at about 2.30 p.m., when he was proceeding towards Sira town along with tomato and chili bags to sell the same in Sira town, he noticed aforesaid tractor trailer belonging To Thangaraju which was proceeding from quarry in Muddakkanahalli village towards Sira town carrying a load of sized stones. It is stated that claimant got into said tractor trailer along with his goods and while he was traveling towards Sira town, said tractor trailer met with an accident resulting in injuries to claimant and others in said tractor trailer. This pleading in column No.22 of aforesaid claim petition is also supported by police document, namely, FIR which is lodged on 21.1.2002 at 4.30 p.m.,i.e., immediately within two hours from the time of accident. Incidentally, said claim petition was filed by the father of Ranganatha, as his next friend. 5. The contents of said petition also disclose that Rangantha war earning a sum of Rs.4,500/-p.m., from out of the activities of vegetable and milk vending and agricultural work. Incidentally, column No.4 of said claim petition did not disclose the claimant was working either as agricultural coolie or in any other capacity under any person. In column No.5 meant for the name of employer, it was left blank, as if he is doing agricultural activity for himself and his family. However, it is seen that claim petition in MVC No.451/2002 which was filed before MACT. Tumkur on 2.5.2002 was subsequently withdrawn on 11.8.2006 i.e., exactly after 4 years 3 months from the date of filing of said petition. 6. Thereafter, in the same year in 2006 present petition is filed before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. Surprisingly, in the claim petition filed before Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, pleadings are totally different from the one which were pleaded in MVC proceedings filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the claim petition filed before Commissioner injured Ranganatha stated that he was working as loader and unloader in the aforesaid tractor trailer belonging to 1st respondent Thangaraju on monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-. In the claim petition filed before Commissioner injured Ranganatha stated that he was working as loader and unloader in the aforesaid tractor trailer belonging to 1st respondent Thangaraju on monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-. According to him, he was working in such capacity for a period of six months prior to the date of accident. On 21.1.2002 he and other labourers went to Muddakkanahalli village at the instance of owner of tractor trailer to load sized stones from the quarry to be unloaded in Sira Town. This clearly indicates that said tractor trailer as on that date was being utilized for the purpose of carrying sized stones from quarry in Muddakkanahalli village to Sira town. As could be seen from the claim petition in MVC proceedings, nowhere it is stated that claimant was working an coolie under Thangaraju at any point of time. 7. Further, it is also specifically stated by him in the proceedings before Commissioner that he was appointed for the job of loader and unloader. When the tractor trailer is utilized for fulltime for the work of carrying goods, the same cannot be presumed to be an agricultural activity and the vehicle cannot be construed as vehicle used for agricultural activities. It is necessary to say at this juncture that this Court in an unreported judgment of this court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd., -vs-Ramamurthy (MFA. No.6122/2005, DD. 31.3.2011 and c/w 6123/2005) has clearly held that when once a person as appointed as loader and unloader in a tractor trailer, it presupposes that said tractor trailer is predominantly used for the activity other than agricultural. In such circumstances, the person who is working in the said tractor trailer cannot seek compensation from the insurance company unless the said vehicle is insured as goods carrying vehicle. Assuming for a moment that if said vehicle is insured for the purpose of agricultural activity, then using of said vehicle for commercial activity would definitely mean that there is deviation from the terms of the policy and the indemnity that is provided by insurance company to the owner of tractor trailer gets automatically dissolved. In the instant case also tractor trailer being used for the purpose of carrying sized stores from the quarry to Sira town, it was not involved in agricultural activity. In the instant case also tractor trailer being used for the purpose of carrying sized stores from the quarry to Sira town, it was not involved in agricultural activity. Therefore, the appellant is justified in contending that there is no liability on it to indemnify the liability, if any saddled on the owner of tractor trailer for the injuries suffered by claimant. 8. Now coming to second aspect, it is seen that in the light of admission by claimant in MVC No.451/2002 that on the relevant date when accident took place he was not working as a loader and unloader in the tractor trailer involved in the accident. He also stated in the said proceedings that he was carrying bags of tomato and chilli to Sira town for the purpose of vending the same. Therefore, the contention which is raised by him in the second petition that he was working as loader and unloader, cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, his contention that he was working as employee under 1st respondent is also not proved in view of the earlier pleading made by him through his father in MVC No.451/2002. 9. At this junctrure, it may be necessary to add one more aspect that counsel for claimant tried to substantiate that claimant being minor, he was not aware of what was pleaded by his father in MVC No.451/2002. That subsequently, after attaining majority he withdrew said claim petition and thereafter filed claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. This argument cannot be accepted, for the reason that a boy aged about 17 years would not be totally unaware, where he cannot understand what is happening and what is said by his father in support of his case. Even assuming that, it is true, nothing prevented him from withdrawing the petition immediately after attaining age of majority and thereafter filing claim petition immediately thereafter. In the instant case, claim petition before MACT was filed on 2.5.2002 and the same was withdrawn nearly after 4 years 3 months i.e. on 11.8.2006. That being the case, claimant’s plea that he was a minor and he was not aware of what his father had instructed the lawyer while filing claim petition in MVC No.451/2002, cannot be believed. 10. That being the case, claimant’s plea that he was a minor and he was not aware of what his father had instructed the lawyer while filing claim petition in MVC No.451/2002, cannot be believed. 10. It is further seen that in the claim petition before Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation the entire order sheet in MVC No.451/2002 is produced and marked as document in ‘R’ series by the insurance company. Surprisingly, Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation has not looked into the same. His conduct in ignoring the same cannot be construed as lapse, on the contrary it clearly indicates that it is international and deliberate. Time and again this Court has observed in many cases that in such false and frivolous cases Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in most of the time will be hand in glove with claimants in somehow trying to fasten liability on insurance company to support the unscrupulous claims. The instant case is another classic example of Commissioner joining hands with claimant deliberately ignoring material available on record. It is rather unfortunate that atleast on 7 to 8 occasions this Court observed such serious misconduct on the part of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, brought this to the notice of Secretary to Government, Labour Department, Secretary to Government, Department of Law and Principal Secretary to Government and directed them to them appropriate steps to take punitive action against such erring officers. On the contrary, it is seen on several such occasions when this court passed structures on those officers the Government being benevolent as it always towards its officers has turned deaf car and further strengthened their hands in continuing them in the same post to allow them to pass illegal orders including the one which is now in appeal before this Court. 11. Be that as it may, coming to the merits of case in the light of aforesaid observations, it is clearly seen the claim made by injured Ranganatha before Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is a false and frivolous claim and the evidence available on record clearly discloses that vehicle which was involved in accident was being used for purpose of commercial activity i.e. carrying of sized stones from quarry at Muddakkanahalli to Sira Town, which is contrary to the terms of policy which was issued by appellant herein. When the being the case Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation by no stretch of imagination had any authority in allowing the claim petition as against the insurance company and saddling liability on insurance company. Therefore, the order that is passed by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is liable to be set aside passing strictures on that officer. 12. With the above observations, is appeal is allowed. The order dated 28.8.2009 in CR.No.59/2006 passed by Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Tumkur, is set aside. Consequently, claim petition in CR.No.59/2006 is dismissed. While doing so this Court direct that a copy of this order be also sent to Secretary. Labour Department with a direction that appropriate proceedings be initiated against the erring officer who has passed the aforesaid order not looking into the materials available on record and clandestinely supporting false and frivolous claim with an intention to defraud the insurance company. In view of the appeal being allowed, the amount in deposit is ordered to be released in favour of insurance company.