JUDGMENT 1. - This is a Section 30 of the Workman's (now Employee's) Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1923') appeal. The appellant-Insurance Company is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.04.2004, passed by the Workman's (now Employee's) Compensation Commissioner, Dholpur (hereinafter 'the Commissioner') where under the respondents-claimants Nos.1 to 4 (hereinafter 'the claimants') have been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,62,158/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident i.e. 16.04.2003 till the date of payment for the death of one Munni alleged to be an employee of Lembar Singh, respondent-owner of the insured tractor No.UP-82/B1580 insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. The case of the appellant-Insurance Company is that it could not have been held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation for the reason that the deceased Munni was admittedly not the driver of the tractor insured with it. Counsel submitted that in terms of insurance policy dated 21.09.2002 (Ex-NA/1) issued in favour of Lembar Singh, owner of the tractor, the sitting capacity of the tractor was zero. Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to Ex-5 which was the registration certificate of the tractor insured. Thereunder also the column of sitting capacity was left out blank indicating that the tractor had no sitting capacity. Counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, the deceased Munni even if a helper as alleged on the tractor in issue at the time of accident of 16.04.2003 was not its liability to cover under the Act of 1923 in the event of dying in a mishap assuming the involvement of the tractor. It was further submitted that no premium for covering the risk of any employee other than driver was taken by the appellant-Insurance Company from the insured-owner, Lembar Singh. Counsel submitted that in the facts obtaining, the following questions of law arise for the consideration of this Court in this appeal : (i) Whether the learned Commissioner misdirected himself on the evidence on the record and did not appreciate the evidence legally, properly and in accordance with law, and came to a perverse finding that the risk of any other person in addition to the driver was covered under the policy? 3. Mr. 3. Mr. Abhi Goyal, appearing for the owner of the tractor No.UP-82/B1580 insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that the insurance policy dated 21.09.2002 (Ex-NA/1) provided that it covered the risk of an employee under workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. It was submitted that the employee of the insured would also include a helper / assistant on the tractor as the deceased Munni was. He however hastened to submit that it was denied before the Commissioner that the deceased Munni was an employee of the insured Lebmar Singh and therefore one way or the other the insured-owner Lembar Singh was not liable to pay compensation for the death of Munni. Further, alternatively in the event of the insured being liable, the liability was to be discharged by the appellant-Insurance Company as the insurer of the tractor No.UP-82/B1580 at the time relevant to the accident of 16.04.2003. 4. Mr. D.K. Garg, appearing for the claimants submitted that the findings of the Commissioner both with regard to the deceased Munni being an employee of Lembar Singh, insured-owner of the tractor No.UP-882/B1580 as also with regard to the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the compensation consequent to her death in an accident arising in the course of her employment on the tractor cannot be faulted with and should be upheld. 5. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 30.04.2004, as also the insurance policy dated 21.09.2002 (Ex-NA/1) and the registration certificate of the tractor No.UP-82/B1580 (Ex-5), I am of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. It is not in dispute that the insured vehicle was a tractor with no sitting capacity at all. It was so indicated categorically in the insurance policy dated 21.09.2002 (Ex-NA/1) as also evident from the registration certificate of the tractor (Ex-5). Consequently, the only liability of the appellant-Insurance Company under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and subsisting contract of insurance qua the employee of the insured-owner Lembar Singh was in respect of the driver of the tractor. It is nobody's case that Munni was driving the tractor. Instead the case set up before the Commissioner was that she was a helper engaged in loading and unloading operation of agricultural produce on the trolley attached to the tractor insured. The trolley attached to the tractor was also admittedly not insured. It is nobody's case that Munni was driving the tractor. Instead the case set up before the Commissioner was that she was a helper engaged in loading and unloading operation of agricultural produce on the trolley attached to the tractor insured. The trolley attached to the tractor was also admittedly not insured. The Commissioner in the circumstances ought to have addressed the fundamental issue with regard to the extent of the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company in the context of its contract of insurance with the insured-owner Lembar Singh as evident from Ex-NA/1 as also the registration certificate of the tractor (Ex-5). This was not done. Contrarily the Commissioner has oddly, peremptorily and wrongly construed the appellant-Insurance Company liability under the insurance policy dated 21.09.2002 (Ex-NA/1) towards its employee of the insured under the Act of 1923 to include a putative helper engaged in the loading and unloading operation of the agricultural produce on the trolley (which trolley was not insured) attached to the tractor. That, to my mind, was a complete misdirection, an erroneous and stretched construction of the contract of the insurance / policy dated 21.09.2002 (Ex-NA/1) before the Commissioner. Construing the insurance policy dated 21.09.2002 (Ex-NA/1) along with the registration certificate (Ex-5) indicates that the tractor has zero sitting capacity. Hence only the driver of the tractor would be the employee under the Act of 1923 covered under the policy. Hence it was not possible to hold that the deceased Munni was an employee under the said policy as she admittedly was not a driver on the tractor in issue. That was nobody's case at all. Consequently, I would answer the question framed in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company and allow this appeal. 6. I find from the case file and it has also been so stated by the counsel for the parties before this Court that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner was deposited with the jurisdictional Commissioner and has since been disbursed to the claimants. It is not difficult to visualise that the claimants belonging to the weaker sections of the society must have expanded the amount of compensation received by them and it would not be possible for them to make a refund thereof in the event the appellant-Insurance Company were to be allowed to make recovery from them. It is not difficult to visualise that the claimants belonging to the weaker sections of the society must have expanded the amount of compensation received by them and it would not be possible for them to make a refund thereof in the event the appellant-Insurance Company were to be allowed to make recovery from them. Consequently, I would direct that no recovery of the amount of compensation under the award dated 30.04.2004 be made from the claimants. The appellant-Insurance Company would however be free to take steps for recovery of amount disbursed in accordance with law.The appeal stands allowed accordingly.Appeal allowed. *******