JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved over the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli, in W.C.No.451 of 2006, the appellant/second respondent has filed the present appeal. 2. The appellant is the second respondent in W.C.No.451 of 2006. The first respondent filed the said petition stating that he was working as Agricultural Coolie under the third respondent. The third respondent is the owner of the Paddy Threshing Machine. The said Paddy Threshing Machine was attached with Tractor belonging to the second respondent. The Paddy Threshing Machine towed to the field of one Kandasamy by the tractor for Threshing the paddy. At the time of paddy was being Threshed, the left hand of the first respondent caught into the Paddy Threshing Machine. Due to the said accident, the left hand of the first respondent was amputated. 3. According to the first respondent, he was aged about 50 years at the time of accident and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month paid by the third respondent. The accident occurred during and in the course of employment. The third respondent is the employer of the first respondent. The third respondent engaged the second respondent's Tractor to tow the Paddy Threshing Machine and it is attached with the second respondent's Tractor. The Tractor was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The Paddy Threshing machine cannot move without use of tractor belonging to the second respondent. Due to the amputation, the first respondent lost his employment and he cannot do his normal work. First Information Report was registered against the third respondent by the Inspector of Police, Siruganoor Police Station. The second respondent is the owner of the Tractor. The appellant is the insurer of the Tractor. The third respondent is the employer of the first respondent. Hence, the first respondent filed W.C.No.451 of 2006 claiming compensation against the respondents 2 & 3 and appellant. 4. The respondents 2 & 3 remained ex-parte before the Commissioner. 5. The appellant filed statement of objection and contended that the first respondent was employed under the third respondent and there is no employer and employee relationship between the respondents 1 & 2. 4. The respondents 2 & 3 remained ex-parte before the Commissioner. 5. The appellant filed statement of objection and contended that the first respondent was employed under the third respondent and there is no employer and employee relationship between the respondents 1 & 2. On the date of accident, the driver of the tractor towed the Paddy Threshing Machine to the field of one Kandasamy and on reaching the field, the driver of the tractor detached the Tractor and parked his tractor on a separate place. The third respondent compelled the first respondent to push the Paddy crop into the Threshing Machine. While doing so, the first respondent's left hand got inside the machine and crushed. The third respondent alone is responsible for the accident. First Information Report was registered against the third respondent. The second respondent's tractor was not involved in the accident. There is no employer and employee relationship between the respondents 1 & 2. Hence, the second respondent and appellant are not liable to pay any compensation to the first respondent. 6. Before the Commissioner, the first respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and one Dr.V.R.Ravi was examined as P.W.2 and marked six documents as Ex.A1 to A6. The appellant examined two witnesses as R.W.1 & R.W.2 and marked five documents as Ex.R1 to R5. 7. The learned Commissioner, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and judgment relied on by the counsel for the first respondent, held that the Paddy Threshing Machine can be operated only by attaching the same with another vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle attached to the Paddy Threshing Machine is liable to pay compensation and held that the appellant is liable to pay compensation. Considering the nature of the injuries and evidence of P.W.2 Doctor, fixed 80% of loss of earning capacity and applying the formula, awarded a sum of Rs.1,64,367/- as compensation to the first respondent. 8. Aggrieved against the said award, the appellant has come out with the present appeal. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first respondent is not an employee of the second respondent and there is no employer and employee relationship between the respondents 1 & 2. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that even if Threshing Machine was attached to the tractor, it was only for transporting the Paddy and Threshing Machine was not permanently attached with Tractor. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that even if Threshing Machine was attached to the tractor, it was only for transporting the Paddy and Threshing Machine was not permanently attached with Tractor. The driver of the Tractor did not have valid driving licence at the time of accident. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that without operation of another vehicle, the Paddy Threshing Machine cannot be used. The accident occurred while the Paddy Threshing Machine attached to the Tractor was operated. The appellant is the insurer of the Tractor is liable to pay compensation. The first respondent as P.W.1 has proved that the Tractor was attached to the Paddy Threshing Machine at the time of accident and prayed for dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the first respondent on the ground that the Tractor was not attached to the Paddy Threshing Machine at the time of accident. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, after the Paddy Threshing Machine Transported to the field, the Tractor was removed and kept separately. The appellant examined R.Ws.1 & 2 to substantiate their case. R.W.1 is the Senior Assistant and he has no knowledge about how the accident has occurred. R.W.2 is the Investigating Officer. According to R.W.2, he enquired the driver of the Tractor, who stated that after Threshing Machine was transported to the field, the Tractor was detached and kept separately and that he was not in Town on the date of accident. R.W.2 has not recorded the statement of the driver of the Tractor. He also failed to state that when he examined the driver of the Tractor. The driver of the Tractor was not examined on behalf of the appellant. From the evidence of R.W.2 it is seen that he went to the spot after 3 years. From the evidence of R.W.2, it cannot be said that Tractor was detached and not attached with Paddy Threshing Machine when accident occurred. 12. For the above reasons, I hold that there is no error in the award of the Commissioner, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. From the evidence of R.W.2, it cannot be said that Tractor was detached and not attached with Paddy Threshing Machine when accident occurred. 12. For the above reasons, I hold that there is no error in the award of the Commissioner, warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest and costs to the credit of W.C.No.451 of 2006, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the first respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with interest by making necessary application before the Commissioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.