JUDGMENT 1. Second respondent in WCA/NF-765/2001 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mandya, has come up in this appeal challenging the order so far as it pertains to saddling the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under: First respondent – claimant is said to be a daily wager under second respondent herein, doing agricultural coolie work. The case of the claimant to that while he was working as agricultural collier under the second respondent on 19.01.2001 at about 8.00 a.m., he was carrying out the work of feeding paddy hay to the trasher for separation of paddy from hay. In the said process, he was using his left leg to feed the hay, which got caught in the crusher resulting in crush injuries to his left leg. Hence he filed Claim Petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Mandya, seeking compensation from his employer and as well as the insurer of the tractor belonging to said employer. 3. In the proceedings before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, on recording of evidence and after hearing the parties, the Commissioner proceeded to allow the Claim Petition awarding compensation to claimant in a sum of Rs.1,69,189/-payable with interest at 12% from the thirtieth date of accident till the date of deposit of entire amount. While passing the order, liability to pay the compensation is fastened on the owner and as well as on Insurance Company. Appellant being aggrieved by the order so far as it pertains to the liability to pay the compensation, has come up in this appeal on the ground that first respondent before the Commissioner has taken the motor vehicle policy coverage for the Mitsubishi tractor bearing No.ADE AV 9433099 and Chasi bearing No.946115. The coverage was also issued to the trailer. 4. It is the specific case of the appellant that the crusher, which was used for removing paddy from hay was not insured with the appellant insurance company and as such, any injury which entitles the claimant to seek compensation cannot be indemnified by the appellant/insurance company. Therefore, the order insofar as it pertains to the fastening liability on the insurance company is bad in law and the same is required to be set-aside. 5. In this proceedings after service of notice, to the claimant and first respondent employer, appeared before the Commissioner. Therefore, the order insofar as it pertains to the fastening liability on the insurance company is bad in law and the same is required to be set-aside. 5. In this proceedings after service of notice, to the claimant and first respondent employer, appeared before the Commissioner. At the time of admission, this appeal was admitted to consider the substantial question of law raised in the appeal memo. Thereafter, after hearing the counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent, this court frame the only substantial question of law that requires to be considered in this appeal which is as under: “Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in holding that the injuries suffered by the claimant during the use of the crusher would amount to injuries suffered due to use of tractor in the course of his employment with the first respondent? 6. Heard the counsel for the appellant and respondents. 7. On reappreciation of pleadings and oral documents available on record with reference to grounds of appeal and also the findings of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in the order impugned, this court answers the aforesaid substantial question of law in the negative, for the following: REASONS 8. Admittedly, the claimant herein has suffered accident while he was discharging his duty as agricultural coolie under the first respondent before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, It is also an admitted fact that the accident is caused to him while he was working on the trasher, which was used to separate hay and paddy. It is also an admitted fact that the said trasher is an independent machine which is not an attachment to the tractor and it is also not in dispute that the said trasher was run from the power that was drawn from the tractor. Merely, because, the power is drawn from the tractor that does not mean that the trasher is an attachment to the tractor. The fact that the accident taken place due to operation of trasher would not amount to accident caused in usage of tractor. 9. The analogy taken by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is without any basis. Admittedly, the insurance company has issued motor vehicle policy to insure the tractor along with trailer attached to that and the said policy does not cover the liability of the respondent owner of the tractor under Workmen’s Compensation Act. 9. The analogy taken by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is without any basis. Admittedly, the insurance company has issued motor vehicle policy to insure the tractor along with trailer attached to that and the said policy does not cover the liability of the respondent owner of the tractor under Workmen’s Compensation Act. Therefore, the liability of the insurer arises only in respect of the injury, which is caused to the claimant in the course of his employment due to the operation of the tractor and trailer. The trasher which is used for separation of the paddy in the field, being an independent machine cannot be considered as an extension of the tractor and the injury suffered by the claimant while working in the said trasher cannot be considered as an injury due to the use of the tractor. 10. There is an error on the part of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in considering that the appellant insurer herein is liable to pay the compensation for the injury suffered by the claimant due to use of trasher. The order passed by the Commissioner is required to be modified in so far as it pertains to fastening of liability on the second respondent insurer, the appellant herein. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the insurer is allowed. The order passed by the Commissioner in WCA 765/2001 is modified so far as it pertains to fastening of liability to pay the compensation by second respondent – insurance company. In the result the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in WECA 765/2001 from the first respondent – employee and the second respondent insurer who is the appellant herein is not under an obligation to indemnify the same, in terms of the motor vehicle policy issued by it to cover the tractor and trailer by the first respondent. In view of the appeal being allowed, the statutory amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.