Judgment : 1. The claimant has filed W.C.No.561 of 2005, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai against the employer and Insurance Company and claimed compensation, stating that the applicant was involved in doing his work in the Paddy Crusher Machine bearing Registration No.TN-23-AZ-5995, under the 1st Opposite Party and earning Rs.200/- per day. While so, on 10.08.2005, at about 5.30 p.m., when he was doing his work, the driver of the Paddy Harvesting Machine had suddenly moved the harvester and thereby caused injuries to the applicant. Hence, the claim petition has been filed. 2. The Insurance Company has filed counter statement and resisted the compensation petition. The respondent stated that the lapse lies only on the side of the applicant and the 1st Opposite Party and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. In the instant case, there is no employer and employee relationship. The respondent denied the nature of injuries, mode of medical treatment, age and occupation of the applicant. Further, it was submitted in their additional counter that the vehicle harvester mounted with the Tractor and it has been authorised only to be used for agricultural purposes. Other than the driver, there is no room or R.C. or place provided for any other person to be seated or carried in the vehicle. Only the driver alone is covered under the policy of Insurance. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to any worker or loadman as per the Workman Compensation Act. 3. The 2nd Opposite Party further submits that the vehicle was a Tractor fitted with a harvester meant exclusively for the use of the insured. It is apparent from the F.I.R. that the vehicle has been used in the land of one Iyyappan and the injured also appears to be employed with the said Iyyappan. It was common knowledge that such machine is used to be put on hire for the benefit of all the agriculturists. However, as the vehicle was operating in 3rd Party's land and that too when it was hired for 3rd party, the 2nd Opposite party is not liable to pay compensation. 4. On verifying the averments of the parties, the Tribunal had framed 5 issues namely (1) Whether the applicant had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment under the 1st Opposite party? 4. On verifying the averments of the parties, the Tribunal had framed 5 issues namely (1) Whether the applicant had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment under the 1st Opposite party? (2) What is the age and wage of the applicant? (3) What is the loss of earning caused to the applicant? (4) What is the quantum of compensation which the applicant is entitled to get? (5) Who is liable to pay compensation? 5. On the side of the applicant, two witnesses were examined namely Claimant and Doctor as PW1 and PW2 and seven documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P7 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Wound Certificate; Ex.P3-Medical Discharge summary; Ex.P4-Insurance cover note; Ex.P5-R.C.Book; Ex.P6-Disability Certificate; and Ex.P7-X-ray. On the side of the respondent, no witnesses, no documentary evidence. PW1, had adduced evidence that on 10.08.2005, at about 5.30 p.m., when he was working in the paddy crusher machine bearing Registration NO.TN-23-AZ-5995, the driver of the harvester machine operated it in a negligent manner and suddenly moved it and as a result, he had sustained injuries on his right hand. PW1 further stated that he was engaged by the 1st Opposite Party as a coolie and he was paid a sum of Rs.200/-per day. PW2, Doctor had adduced evidence that on 17.11.2006, he had examined the PW1 and assessed his disability at 75%. The Doctor further stated that the blood vessels and nerves in the applicant's right hand had been cut off and as a result blood had clotted in the blood vessel of right hand and the same had been removed after an operation. The applicant's right hand muscles were shrunk. As a result, he is unable to use his right hand to partake of food and in doing other kind of work. 6. On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by the applicant, the Tribunal had awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.3,74,310/-. Against the said order, the Insurance Company had filed the above appeal. The very competent counsel argued that there was no employer-employee relationship between the applicant and 1st Opposite party. As per the ingredients of the F.I.R., the applicant had engaged the harvester for harvesting the crops in the 1st Opposite Party's lands. Therefore, the applicant has not been engaged in order to carry out any work in the harvesting machine. The very competent counsel argued that there was no employer-employee relationship between the applicant and 1st Opposite party. As per the ingredients of the F.I.R., the applicant had engaged the harvester for harvesting the crops in the 1st Opposite Party's lands. Therefore, the applicant has not been engaged in order to carry out any work in the harvesting machine. Further, the harvesting machine is only meant for agricultural work of the insured and it cannot be let out for hire purpose. As such, the terms and conditions of policy have been violated. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set aside the award. The learned counsel had cited a judgment reported in 2012 ACJ 478 (P.Venkateshwar Rao V. Sarojamma and others) "Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 147 (1) proviso (i)(a)-Motor insurance-Harvesting vehicle-Helper-Death of-Liability of insurance company-Harvesting vehicle classified and registered as motor vehicle and duly insured-Harvesting vehicle was passing under electric wire, helper sitting in the vehicle came in contact with live wire and was electrocuted-Additional premium had been paid to cover one employee in the vehicle under Workmen's Compensation Act-Tribunal found that one employee, i.e., driver is covered, deceased was an unauthorised occupant in the vehicle and exempted insurance company from liability-Liability towards driver is statutorily covered under the Act and, therefore, the additional premium was collected not towards the liability of driver but for the other employee-Vehicle cannot be operated without the assistance of helper in addition to driver and deceased was not an unauthorised occupant of the vehicle-Whether insurance company is liable-Held: yes." 7. The very competent counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was engaged in the paddy harvesting work. For carrying out the harvesting work, the harvesting machine had been engaged. The driver of the harvesting machine had suddenly moved the same in a negligent manner as a result of which the blood vessels and nerves of the applicant's right hand had been cut off and blood clotting had developed and operation was conducted. Now, the applicant's right hand has become shrunk and the muscles had been hardened. The movements of his right hand had become restricted and as such the applicant has sustained permanent discomfort and unable to take food by using his right hand in a normal manner. Now, the applicant's right hand has become shrunk and the muscles had been hardened. The movements of his right hand had become restricted and as such the applicant has sustained permanent discomfort and unable to take food by using his right hand in a normal manner. The harvesting machine had been insured with the Insurance Company and the harvesting machine had been operated in the agricultural field for harvesting the paddy, wherein the applicant had been engaged as a coolie. He had also been involved in operation of the harvesting of paddy. The very competent counsel further submits that the Doctor had assessed the disability at 75%. Therefore, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour had assessed the compensation on the basis of age, occupation, wage, disability and Insurance policy, in an appropriate manner. 8. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding employer-employee relationship and the fact that the applicant had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and during the course of doing his work under the employment of the Opposite party and liability and compensation. Further, the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour had framed 5 necessary issues and decided all the issues on the strength of oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above appeal and the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is found to be appropriate and is found fit enough to be executed upon. 9. As per this Court records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount has been deposited. Further, the claimant had been permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount. Now, it is open to the applicant to withdraw the balance compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of W.C.No.561 of 2005, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this order and after identification of the applicant by his learned counsel. This Court further directs the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour to disburse the said amount, forthwith, after complying with the above observations. 10. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. This Court further directs the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour to disburse the said amount, forthwith, after complying with the above observations. 10. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed in W.C.No.561 of 2005, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, dated 12.10.2007, is confirmed. No costs.