JUDGMENT : S. Sujatha, J. This appeal is by the insurer directed against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur. 2. Though the matter is listed for admission, the matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent of both the parties. 3. This appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (the 'Act' for short). The substantial question law, which arises for consideration before this Court is; "Whether the Commissioner is justified in fastening the liability of satisfying the award on the appellant insurer when the tractor alone was insured with it and not the trailer and no passengers were suppose to travel in the tractor? 4. The facts in brief are : - that the respondent No. 1/claimant preferred the claim petition seeking compensation contending that she was working as a hamali in a tractor and trailer bearing registration No. KA-33/490-491 under the respondent No. 3 herein, it was contended that on 1.05.2004, as per the directions of respondent No. 3 she was proceeding in a tractor and trailer and when the said tractor and trailer was proceeding near Toladinni Cress, the driver of the tractor and trailer drove it in a high speed and also in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It was averred that in the said accident she sustained injuries and immediately after the accident she was shifted to PHC Kodekal, wherein, she took first aid and thereafter she took further treatment in Government Hospital, Raichur. It was contended that the injury was sustained in the accident, when she was on work under respondent No.3 during the course of employment. The appellant insurance company contested the matter. It has also taken permission under Section 170 of M.V. Act, to contest the claim petition on all grounds. Appreciating the evidence on record, the Commissioner awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,80,773/- with interest @ 12% p.a. fastening the liability on the appellant to pay the same. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the offending vehicle, Tractor and Trailer had different registration numbers. The tractor had the number of KA-33/490 whereas the trailer had the number KA-33/491. The tractor bearing registration No. KA-33/490 was covered with the insurance policy issued by the appellant. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the offending vehicle, Tractor and Trailer had different registration numbers. The tractor had the number of KA-33/490 whereas the trailer had the number KA-33/491. The tractor bearing registration No. KA-33/490 was covered with the insurance policy issued by the appellant. The trailer bearing registration No. KA-33/491 was not covered by the insurance policy. Even though the specific defence was raised by the appellant before the Commissioner, the Commissioner having held that no separate coverage is required for the trailer, fastened the liability on the appellant insurer. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. D. Laxman and Others, reported in II (2007) ACC 905. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants supporting the order passed by the Commissioner would contend that though tractor and trailer arc separately registered, the policy covered with the tractor also covers the trailer. Trailer is only art attachment to the tractor and it cannot be construed as a separate motor vehicle under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel further submits that the claimant is a third party and as such this Court may direct that appellant to make the payment of compensation awarded by the Commissioner and to recover the same from the owner. In support of her contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments; (i) The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parubai and Others in MFA No. 30712/2011 disposed of on 27.09.2012. (ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. N. Prakash and Another, reported in 2011 (3) AIR Kar R.633. 7. Heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The substantial question of law, involved in this appeal, is no more res-integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hanumanthappa, reported in ILR 1992 Kar. 1335, has held thus; "Firstly, a tractor is a motor vehicle as defined in Section 2(18). Secondly, tractor is a motor vehicle which itself is not constructed to carry any load, but is meant to use for the purpose of propulsion of a trailer. Ltd. v. Hanumanthappa, reported in ILR 1992 Kar. 1335, has held thus; "Firstly, a tractor is a motor vehicle as defined in Section 2(18). Secondly, tractor is a motor vehicle which itself is not constructed to carry any load, but is meant to use for the purpose of propulsion of a trailer. Thirdly, the trailer is defined as a vehicle other than a side car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.... There can be no doubt that a trailer is constructed for the purpose of carriage of the goods and when it is pulled by a tractor, both together constitute a transport vehicle i.e., a goods vehicle, tractor-trailer squarely falls within the definition of the words 'goods vehicle'. The Insurance Company with which tractor and trailer attached thereto are insured, is liable to pay compensation in respect of death of or bodily injury to employees travelling in the trailer. The liability is limited to six employees and the extent of liability is limited to the amount of compensation payable under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, unless in a given case, the owner concerned has taken extra coverage by paying an extra amount of premium". 28. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. N. Chandrashekaran and others (supra), has observed thus : "7. In the present case, the appellant has only issued a policy in respect of the tractor and the appellant would be liable to indemnify' the insured in respect of risk arising out of the use of tractor as such. But if the tractor draws a trailer and the accident is caused by such tractor-trailer then the vehicle causing the accident would not be a tractor but a goods vehicle. It is only if both tractor and trailer are insured, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the owner against claims arising out of the use of tractor and trailer. This view would be in conformity with the other' statutory provisions, which require even a trailer to be insured. As in this case it is undisputed that only the tractor was insured with the appellant and that the trailer was not insured and that the accident was caused by the tractor trailer, it has to be held that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant." 29. As in this case it is undisputed that only the tractor was insured with the appellant and that the trailer was not insured and that the accident was caused by the tractor trailer, it has to be held that the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimant." 29. The aforesaid view is reiterated by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Thirkappa Ramappa Itagi and another (supra). In the said decision, the Court has observed thus; "The Division Bench followed the view of the Full Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Dundamma to hold that tractor-trailor is goods vehicle. Considering the tariff separately available for the trailers under Clause A(3), the Division Bench was of the view that both tractor and trailer be independently considered as motor vehicle and should be individually insured. The insurance cover made available to the tractor cannot be automatically extended to the trailer, and the trailer also should be separately insured within the meaning of Clause A(3) available under Section 64(v) of the Insurance Act. That is how the word 'are' used as against the noun calls as 'A tractor and a trailer' attached thereto. By deliberately using the word 'are' means that both the tractor and the trailer must have been insured." 9. Considering the D. Laxman's case (supra) Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri Qovinda Bapurao Madaje in MFA No. 10881/2007 and connected matter has held that the tractor and trailer both requires to be separately insured, the requirement of insurance both to the tractor and trailer is not complied therefore fastening the liability on the insurer is bad in law. Following these judgments, it is clear that only if both the tractor and trailer are insured, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the owner against claims arising out of the use of tractor and trailer. In the instant case admittedly, the tractor alone being insured fastening the liability on the insurer is unsustainable. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in affirmative in favour of the appellant and against the claimant. 10. In the instant case admittedly, the tractor alone being insured fastening the liability on the insurer is unsustainable. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in affirmative in favour of the appellant and against the claimant. 10. As regards the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the claimant, to direct the appellant insurer to pay and recover is not worthy of acceptance in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others reported in 2004 ACJ I and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri K.C. Subramanyam and Another reported in ILR 2012 KAR 5241 wherein, it is held that Sub Section (4) and (5) of Section 149 cannot be imported into Section 149 (2) unless the legislature explicitly provides so. In the absence of any such provision under Section 149 (2) of the Act, this Court has no power to direct the insurer appellant to pay and recover even against a third party. Hence, the judgments relied on by the claimants are not applicable to the facts of the case. The arguments of the claimants for pay and recover deserves to be negated and accordingly rejected. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. However, the owner respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the Commissioner. 12. The amount in deposit if any, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursement.