JUDGMENT S.C. Parija, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the judgment/award dated 5.2.2013, passed by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation Sambalpur, in W.C. Case No. 38 of 2006, awarding an amount of ` 2,19,156/- as compensation, to be deposited within thirty days, failing which interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable from the date of date the judgment, till the date of deposit. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that as the trailer attached to the tractor bearing No. OR-5-J/3678 was not insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and only the risk of the driver of the tractor was covered under the policy, the injured-claimant (Bhaskar Khadia), who was traveling in the trailer as a labourer, was not covered under the policy. It is submitted that as no premium has been paid covering the risk of the coolie or labourer traveling in the trailer, the Commissioner erred in fixing the liability on the appellant to pay the compensation amount awarded. It is accordingly submitted that as the trailer attached to the tractor was not insured and admittedly the injured labourer was traveling in the said trailer, no liability could have been saddled on the Insurance Company. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon decisions of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brij Mohan and others 2007 (68) ALR 794 (SC) : 2007 (57) AIC 189, and United India Insurance Company Limited v. Serjerao and others: 2008 (70) ALR 146 (SC), in support of his contention that the trailer in which the injured labourer was traveling, being not covered under a policy of insurance, no liability can be saddled on the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that as the injured claimant had not filed the injury report and no doctor has been examined to certify the extent of disability suffered by the claimant and consequential loss of his earning capacity, the assessment of the compensation amount is not proper and justified. It is further submitted that the award of default interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award is also not proper and justified. 4. It is further submitted that the award of default interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award is also not proper and justified. 4. Learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1, with reference to the insurance policy bearing No. 3008/104337/11/000, issued in respect of the offending tractor, which was valid from 24.10.2005 to 23.10.2006, covering the date of the accident, submits that as the Insurance Company had collected premium of ` 100/- towards legal liability to a coolie/labourer, it cannot deny its liability on the technical ground that the trailer attached to the tractor was not insured. It is submitted that as the tractor is not constructed to carry any passenger and being aware of such fact, the Insurance Company has insured the same and collected premium covering the risk or liability of a labourer or coolie, the plea of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. In this regard, learned Counsel for the claimant submits that as the trailer in itself is not a 'motor vehicle' and being attached to a tractor becomes a goods vehicle, there is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk. 5. Learned Counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 has relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gunti Devaiah and others v. Vaka Peddi Reddy and others: 2004 ACJ 1881 , wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that the insurance of a trailer is not mandatory requirement under the provisions of section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act and if the prime mover/motor vehicle/tractor is insured and the negligence of the driver of the said motor vehicle is established, the compensation is payable by the owner of the tractor and the insurer, irrespective of the fact that whether the victim suffers injury with the tractor or with the trailer. 6. Learned Counsel for the claimant has also relied upon a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kalapa District v. Koduru Bhagyamma and others: 2008 (2) TAC 582 (A.P), where the Hon'ble Court, while approving the decision in Gunti Devaiah (supra), has held as under:-- "So by the said definition, the Motor Vehicles are those vehicles which are mechanically propelled and adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source. Under sub-section (44) of section 2 of the Act tractor is defined as a Motor Vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load. Tractor is a special type of Motor Vehicle which cannot by itself carry any load, but all the same it is a Motor Vehicle. Sub-section (46) of section 2 of the Act defines trailer as a vehicle which is intended to be drawn by a Motor Vehicle. So if sub-sections (28), (44) and (46) of section 2 of the Act are read together, it becomes clear that a trailer is not a Motor Vehicle, but becomes part of a Motor Vehicle when it is drawn by a Motor Vehicle because sub-section (28) of section 2 of the Act makes a special reference to a trailer and trailer cannot be moved on roads except by a propulsion transmitted thereto from a Motor Vehicle. Therefore, in our view, a trailer attached to a Motor Vehicles itself." 7. On a perusal of the impugned award it is seen that learned Tribunal while taking note of the decision in Gunti Devaiah (supra) has come to hold as under:-- "xxx The question arises whether the trailer is required to be insured separately for making Insurance Company liable. The trailer is a detachable container which does not have any independent driving system and is not driven by a separate driver holding a licence. The question of driving trailer in a rash and negligent manner would not arise. The trailer is only a vehicle not a motor vehicle. When the trailer is attached to the tractor, it becomes a tractor-trailer There is no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover the third party risk. The reasons are obvious that it cannot be driven by the driver as in the case of motor vehicle or tractor. If the victim is hit by the trailer on account of the rash and negligent manner of the driver of the tractor, can it be said that the owner of the trailer will be liable for the compensation. But for the negligent driving of the prime mover or tractor or the motor vehicle if the accident occurred, whether the trailer is insured or not, the owner of the motor vehicle will be alone responsible for causing accident and liable for compensation. But for the negligent driving of the prime mover or tractor or the motor vehicle if the accident occurred, whether the trailer is insured or not, the owner of the motor vehicle will be alone responsible for causing accident and liable for compensation. If the trailer is insured, it can not be construed as insurance of a motor vehicle making the owner of the trailer liable for compensation under the principle of tortuous liability. The offending tractor was carrying the trailer along with employees and though trailer is not insured in as much the negligence is attributed to the driver of the tractor which was insured by the Insurance Company, it is liable for payment of compensation as it covers third party risk." 8. Coming to the question regarding the nature of injury sustained by the injured claimant and the extent of disability suffered by him for assessing the loss of his earning capacity, the learned Tribunal has come to hold as under-- "xxx. An unskilled labour derives his strength only if he possesses a good physic/strength. In the instant case, he has not filed any disability certificate from the competent authority, the Court goes with its observation that his earning capacity has been reduced due to disabled body which resulted on account of accident. When plentily able bodied persons are available in the employment market for hire to use their services, no employer will prefer to use the services/labour of unskilled labour who is unable to deliver any outturn of an assigned job. So I am of the opinion that his labour in the employment market carries no value and hence, the loss of earning capacity of the applicant Bhaskar Khadia is 100%. xxx". 9. In the present case, under insurance policy issued in respect of the offending tractor, the Insurance Company has collected premium of ` 100/- towards its legal liability to a labourer or coolie. When the tractor is not constructed to carry any load, (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion), as defined under section 2(44) of the M.V. Act, it is not understood as to how the Insurance Company had collected premium covering the risk of coolie. When the tractor is not constructed to carry any load, (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion), as defined under section 2(44) of the M.V. Act, it is not understood as to how the Insurance Company had collected premium covering the risk of coolie. Moreover, as the provisions of the M.V. Act with regard to payment of compensation is a beneficial social legislation, it is incumbent that the same should be interpreted in the spirit in which it has been enacted, accompanied by an anxiety to ensure that the protection is not nullified by the backward looking interpretation, which serves to defeat the provision rather than to fulfill its life-aim. To do otherwise would amount to nullifying the benevolent provision by reading it with a non-benevolent eye and with a mind not tuned to the purpose and philosophy of the legislation, without being informed of the true goals sought to be achieved. When the option is between opting for a view which will relieve the distress and misery of the victims of accidents or their dependants on the one hand and the equally plausible view which will reduce the profitability of the insurer in regard to the occupational hazard undertaken by him by way of business activity, there is hardly any choice. The Court cannot but opt for the former view (See Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and others : (1987) 2 SCC 654 .). 10. For the reasons, as aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned award fixing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation amount so as to warrant any interference. 11. However, as regard the quantum of compensation amount awarded and the basis on which the same is arrived at, I feel, the interest of justice would be best served if the awarded compensation amount of ` 2,19,156/- is modified and reduced to ` 1,80,000/- which is payable to the claimant, on which no interest is payable. The impugned award is modified to the said extent only. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Sambalpur, is directed to disburse the modified compensation amount of ` 1,80,000/- along with accrued interest thereon to the claimant on proper identification. The balance amount along with interest be refunded to the appellant insurance Company. FAO is accordingly disposed of.