JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere, thereby awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.3,29,925/to the dependents of the deceased. 2. Facts leading to this appeal stated in nutshell are; one Mahesh, son of the claimants died in an accident that occurred on 31.05.2006. His parents filed claim petition under Section 22 of the Act contending inter alia that deceased was working as Hamal under one K. Jayappa – respondent No.3 herein in his tractor trailer bearing registration No.KA17/T3281/3282 for the last 2 years prior to the date of accident. On instructions and as directed by the owner of tractor trailer, deceased along with other labourers went to harvest paddy in the land of Jayappa of Shamnur Village in Davanagere taluk. Wheels of the tractor trailer got stuck in the wet mud of the land belonging to Jayappa. At that time, deceased started cleaning the wet mud near the trailer wheel. The driver of tractor suddenly moved the tractor resulting in the trailer dashing against the chest and other parts of the body of Mahesh. He was shifted to Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere where he died on the following morning. 3. Contending that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of driver of the tractor and trailer when the deceased was engaged as a labourer under the owner and hence the accident arose out of and during the course of employment, the dependents of deceased sought for compensation. 4. Owner of tractor trailer who was arrayed as respondent No.1 filed objections. He admitted the relationship of employer and employee as asserted by claimants. He also admitted the fact that accident occurred when deceased was trying to help clear the wheels of tractor. He did not deny his liability to pay compensation. Appellant – Insurance company, however, denied its liability mainly contending that tractor trailer was not a goods vehicle and that assertion made by claimants that accident occurred while he was discharging his duties as a labourer under the owner was false. 5. Before the Commissioner, father of deceased – K.Hanumanthappa claimant No.1 examined himself as P.W.1. Appellant – Insurance company, however, denied its liability mainly contending that tractor trailer was not a goods vehicle and that assertion made by claimants that accident occurred while he was discharging his duties as a labourer under the owner was false. 5. Before the Commissioner, father of deceased – K.Hanumanthappa claimant No.1 examined himself as P.W.1. He has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition that his son was engaged as a labourer in the tractor trailer belonging to owner for the last two years prior to the date of accident and that every year, the vehicle was being taken to the land of one Jayappa for the purpose of harvesting the paddy crop and to bring back the hay for feeding cattle belonging to K.Hanumanthappa. He has stated in the cross-examination that police recorded his statement at the time of conducting inquest panchanama. He has also stated that at that time he did not state that his son was working as a coolie in the tractor trailer under the 3rd respondent herein. 6. In the complaint filed by B.Jayappa S/o. Halappa, who is none other than the owner of the land wherein the paddy crop was harvested and who incidentally happened to be the relative of the deceased, he has not stated that deceased Mahesh had been engaged as a labourer by the owner of tractor trailer. He has only stated that deceased Mahesh along with other coolies had come to his village to harvest the paddy and to take the hay from his land. 7. On the strength of the contents of complaint and the statement made by father of deceased / claimant No.1 before the police at the time of conducting inquest panchanama which has been marked as Ex.P.4, learned counsel appearing for appellant – insurance company contends that the Commissioner committed serious illegality in recording a finding regarding the existence of relationship of employer and employee between the owner of tractor trailer and deceased Mahesh. It is his submission that deceased Mahesh had taken the tractor to his relative’s land to fetch the hay for the purpose of his family after harvesting the paddy, hence it could not be said that he was in any manner engaged by the owner of tractor and trailer as his workman to carry out the said assignment. It is his submission that deceased Mahesh had taken the tractor to his relative’s land to fetch the hay for the purpose of his family after harvesting the paddy, hence it could not be said that he was in any manner engaged by the owner of tractor and trailer as his workman to carry out the said assignment. It is urged that if at all he had been engaged as a labourer, the same could have been reflected in the complaint or atleast father of deceased would have stated so during the course of inquest panchanama when his statement was recorded by the police. Therefore, he submits that the Commissioner has committed serious illegality in returning a finding regarding the existence of employer and employee relationship. 8. It is his next contention that accident occurred when the tractor had got stuck in the wet mud while the deceased was attempting to clear the wheel. Therefore, it could not be said that deceased was ‘being carried’ in the vehicle at the time when the accident occurred as has been stipulated under Section 147(1)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. Though the appeal has been admitted in the year 2008, no substantial questions of law have been framed. Hence, having heard the learned counsel for both parties and on careful examination of the entire records made available, following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this case: (i) Whether the Commissioner was justified in recording a finding that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the insured and deceased employee? (ii) Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that insurance company was liable to make good the loss though at the time when the accident occurred the employee was attending to the wheels of the tractor and was not actually carried in the vehicle? 10. As already pointed out, it is the specific case of claimants before the Commissioner that deceased was engaged by K. Jayappa in his tractor trailer as a labourer since two years prior to the date of accident. Assertion made by claimants in the claim petition to the effect that deceased was sent along with other labourers to bring paddy hay from the land of one Jayappa of Shamnur Village in Davangere Taluk has been admitted by the owner of tractor trailor. Assertion made by claimants in the claim petition to the effect that deceased was sent along with other labourers to bring paddy hay from the land of one Jayappa of Shamnur Village in Davangere Taluk has been admitted by the owner of tractor trailor. Relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the owner of tractor trailor has been specifically admitted by the owner by filing objections. The owner has not entered the witness box. He has not been summoned for cross-examination. Insurance Company has not examined the driver of tractor trailor. It has not taken any specific contention in the statement of objections denying the relationship contending that Mahesh had gone to his relative’s land by hiring the tractor. No such suggestion is made even in the cross-examination of P.W.1. 11. It is true, in the complaint filed there is no reference to the fact that deceased was engaged as coolie by the owner of tractor trailor. Mere fact that complaint states that deceased had come to the land of complainant to harvest the paddy and take the paddy hay in the tractor trailor cannot lead to an inference that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the owner of tractor trailor and deceased Mahesh. 12. Inquest panchanama and the statement recorded by the police during the course of inquest panchanama also do not render the version of claimant improbable merely because father of the deceased did not state in what capacity deceased had gone to the land of Jayappa in the tractor to bring paddy hay. He has not stated that either himself or his son had hired the tractor to bring the paddy hay from the land of Jayappa. In such circumstances, complaint and the statement before the police cannot be taken to hold that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the owner of tractor trailor. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Commissioner holding that claimants established relationship of employer and employee as asserted in the claim petition. 13. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Commissioner holding that claimants established relationship of employer and employee as asserted in the claim petition. 13. Insofar as the other contentions urged by learned counsel for appellant that deceased was not carried in the vehicle at the time of accident and therefore, insurance company was not liable, it has to be stated that facts and circumstances involved in this case disclose that as a labourer deceased was carried in the vehicle after harvest was done, and when the vehicle got stuck in wet mud, deceased, in order to help clear the wheels and ensure that tractor and trailor moved out was making necessary effort in that connection and it was at that juncture accident took place, resulting in his death. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the accident did not occur when the labourer was being carried in the vehicle. The expression ‘being carried in the vehicle’ used in proviso (i) (c) to Section 147(1) of the Act cannot be understood in isolation, dehorsthe facts and circumstances involved in a given case. Circumstances in the present case are so interconnected with movement of the vehicle and deceased being carried in it that it cannot be said by adopting a pedantic and rigid interpretation that when the accident occurred deceased was not carried in the vehicle because at that point in time he was not sitting on it. In my view, as long as such close connection with the vehicle and the labourer attending to the vehicle who was indeed carried in the vehicle before the vehicle got stuck, at the time of accident, as has happened in the instant case, is established, it cannot, but be said that the employee was indeed carried in the vehicle at the time when the accident occurred. Hence, in my view, insurance company cannot avoid its liability on such hyper technical defence taken when all other things are established including the relationship of employer and employee and the fact that the accident arose out and during the course of employment. 14. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law raised are answered in favour of the workman and against the appellant insurance company. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed