ORDER 1. Appellant / Insurance Co. has filed this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, (Labour Court), Ujjain in Case No.23/2002 W.C.F whereby disputing its liability to indemnify the amount of compensation on the ground that the thresher in which the deceased got injured and died was not insured beyond the scope of damage to the thresher. In other words there was no third party insurance for thresher, thus the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 2. Short facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 to 7 are the legal heirs of the deceased Vikram. Vikram was employed with the owner of the vehicles which were insured by the appellant / Insurance Company, ie., tractor bearing registration No.MP. KA 2463 as well as the thresher. On 30.9.2001 in the night Vikram was working on the thresher. He was loading Soyabean in the thresher machine. The said thresher machine was being operated by the aforesaid tractor. While working on the machine an accident happened inasmuch as the hand of the Vikram was sucked into the machine because of which he sustained grievous injuries on his hand and head and resulting to those injuries he has died. 3. The respondents No.1 to 7 filed claim petition in terms of the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act (now Employee's Compensation Act). The learned Labour Court after recording evidence in the matter concluded that Vikram at the time of accident was employed as a workman on the tractor having registration No.MP. KA 2463. The Labour Court then decided the issue regarding accident on 30.9.2001 in favour of the claimants holding that Vikram has died during work in the course of employment. It further decided that the deceased was earning Rs.2400/- per month at the time of his death and after concluding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in terms of Section 4A of the Employee's Compensation Act direction was given for payment of compensation of Rs.2,68,000/- with an interest of 9% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Co. submits that the thresher was not insured for third party. It was only a limited Insurance Policy for insurance cover of thresher and nothing beyond that. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Co. submits that the thresher was not insured for third party. It was only a limited Insurance Policy for insurance cover of thresher and nothing beyond that. He by referring to Exhibit D/3 the Insurance Policy of the thresher submits that in the said policy it has clearly been spelled out that it is only thresher insurance policy covering thresher of 1999 model for which an amount of Rs.25,000/- was sum insured. He further refers to Exhibit D/4, which is the receipt of payment of Rs.25,000/-. He then goes on to refer Exhibit D/5, which is thresher insurance scheme. He points out in the said scheme that scope of cover does not include accident to third party. He further points out that additional cover for bodily injury, injury to workman / employee of the insured engaged to operate the thresher. He points out that no premium for additional coverage in terms of the said policy at 25% extra was paid. As such the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. He points out the findings of the Labour Court as contained in para 23 of the impugned order in which the Court even after referring to Exhibit D/3 and Exhibit D/4 and the witness Arun Kevaliya has not considered the same in its right perspective and still held the Insurance Company liable for payment. He further points out that for covering the third party there must have been contract which is completely absent in the present case looking to thresher Insurance Policy Exhibit D/3. He lastly submits that there is no automatic interest like in the case of Motor Vehicles Act. In the present case Insurance Policy did not provide for payment of interest thus the learned Labour Court could not have awarded interest on the amount of compensation in case the Court finds that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal , 2004 (8) SCC 644 . He thus prays for setting aside the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal , 2004 (8) SCC 644 . He thus prays for setting aside the impugned award. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 / claimants refers to para 2 of the impugned order and points out that portrayal of the case as if only thresher was involved is not correct. He points out that the thresher was being propelled by the tractor and same person owned both the tractor as well as thresher and even trolley. He points out that not only thresher but even the tractor was insured with the appellant / Insurance Company. This fact has clearly been recorded by the learned Labour Court in para 2. He then refers to Exhibit D/2 which is Insurance Policy of the tractor in which it has been mentioned with respect to coverage that it is Farmer's Package Insurance Swaraj Tractor / Trolley. He thus submits that it is a package policy covering third party also. He also points out that the interest is payable in terms of section 4 and 4(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Praveenbhai S. Khambhayata v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors. MACD 2015 (SC) 27 as well as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anandi Devi & Ors . 2010 ACJ 1002 as also National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera & Ors. 2010 ACJ 2272 (Rajasthan High Court). 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 3.3.2008. However, while admitting the appeal SQL in terms of requirement of section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act were not framed. While hearing this appeal finally with the consent of the parties following substantial questions of law were framed :- "(A) Whether policy issued for thresher machine automatically covers the risk of the workman employee on the same in absence of any premium charged for the same or coverage extended under the policy ?. While hearing this appeal finally with the consent of the parties following substantial questions of law were framed :- "(A) Whether policy issued for thresher machine automatically covers the risk of the workman employee on the same in absence of any premium charged for the same or coverage extended under the policy ?. (B) Whether the policy issued for the thresher machine covers the risk under the Workmen's Compensation Act without any premium and or contract under the policy for the same ?. (C) Whether the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation in view of the fact that it also was the insurer for tractor trolley and the policy was a Farmer's Package Policy ?. (D) Whether the liability to pay interest in absence of any clause covered in the policy can be fastened on the insurer who has issued policy for the machine only ?." Looking to the inter connection between the question No.A and C, they are being decided together :- 8. It is seen from the record that the appellant is the insurer of tractor trolley as well as thresher. The Insurance Policy of thresher is Exhibit D/3 and Insurance Policy of tractor trolley is Exhibit D/2. Exhibit D/2 is a Farmer's Package Insurance which provides coverage for agriculture activity. In the impugned award a finding has been recorded by the learned Labour Court in para 20 of the order to the effect that deceased Vikram was employed on the tractor bearing registration No.MP. KA 2463 on the date of accident. It is also clear from findings recorded in para 15 to 19 particularly para 19 that the tractor brought the thresher machine to the agricultural field of Babulal. It is also clear that the tractor was propelling thrasher machine ie., thresher was attached to the tractor and tractor was propelling thresher and while this accident happened it was tractor which was propelling the thresher. It is thus clear that the incident involved a tractor also without the propulsion of tractor the thresher would not have worked. The Hon'ble apex Court in the recent decision of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Honnamma & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1027 held in para 11 and 12 as under :- "11. It is thus clear that the incident involved a tractor also without the propulsion of tractor the thresher would not have worked. The Hon'ble apex Court in the recent decision of Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Honnamma & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1027 held in para 11 and 12 as under :- "11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example : that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred. 12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 ; K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563 ] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710 ; K Ramya v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563 ] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate : if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality." 9. In this view of the facts in the considered view of this Court, appellant as insurer of the tractor was liable to pay compensation for accident happened during the course of employment. 10. The Labour Court remained completely oblivious of the Insurance Policy of tractor which was available on record as Exhibit D/2. While consideration regarding thresher has been recorded by the Labour Court. However, it proceeded on wrong path as the policy of thresher was limited to damage to the machine. However, in view of the above quoted judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court, it is clear that the Insurance Company is still liable for payment of compensation. As such the liability of the Insurance Company is affirmed, however on different grounds. As such substantial questions No.A and C are decided in favour of the claimants/respondent No.1 to 7. 11. Question No.B :- As regards substantial question B, as the laibility of the Insurance Company has been decided viz a viz; Insurance Policy of the tractor question B becomes redundant, thus it need not be decided. 12. Question No.D :- As regards the interest the requirement of the Employee's Compensation Act is that if the compensation is not payed within the stipulated period of 30 days, then in terms of section 4 and 4(a) of the Act, the owners / insurer is liable to pay interest, in this view of the matter question (D) is also decided against the appellant. 13. 13. In view of the above analysis, the appeal of the Insurance Company fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.