IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 MFA.No. 56 of 2003() -------------------- WCC.278/2000 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY ----------------------------- THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SOUTH JUNCTION, CHALAKUDY, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, REGIONAL OFFICE, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN RESPONDENTS: APPLICANTS AND 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY ---------------------------------------------- 1. DEVASSY, S/O.PULIKKAN OUSEPH, THURUTHIPARAMBU DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, KOTTATT P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. ANNAMKUTTY, W/O.PULIKKAN DEVASSY, THURUTHIPARAMBU DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, KOTTATT P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. JOSE, S/O.PULIKKAN DEVASSY, THURUTHIPARAMBU DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, KOTTATT P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. GRACY, D/O.PULIKKAN DEVASSY, THURUTHIPARAMBU DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, KOTTATT P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. ANTOO, S/O.PULIKKAN DEVASSY, THURUTHIPARAMBU DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, KOTTATT P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. SEBY, S/O.PULIKKAN DEVASSY, THURUTHIPARAMBU DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, KOTTATT P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. ANSA, D/O.PULIKKAN DEVASSY, THURUTHIPARAMBU DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, KOTTATT P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY FOR R1-R7 SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1-R7 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON 17/09/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. .................................................................... M.F.A. No.56 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. We have heard Sri.Jacob Murikan, counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company. Challenge is against the award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner making the Insurance Company liable for compensation for the death of one person who died in the truck accident which was insured by the appellant. The finding of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is that the deceased was a cleaner of the truck employed by the registered owner and consequently, the Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation under the policy covering employees. However, counsel for the appellant referred to Ext.M3 which is the evidence furnished by the brother of the deceased who has clearly stated that the deceased was a merchant in chicken and the accident occurred while he was on a business mission in the truck. Therefore, according to him, the finding that the deceased was a cleaner is without any basis and once the said finding goes, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner loses jurisdiction to entertain an application for award of 2 compensation. 2. Even though we find substance in this contention, on going through Ext.M1 which is the policy certificate of insurance issued by the appellant, it is clear that the policy covers non-fare paying non-employee also for which a premium of Rs.50/- is collected. In other words, even if the appeal is allowed by vacating the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, still the matter will have to be referred to the MACT for considering compensation to the claimants who are legal heirs of the deceased. Even though appellant will succeed in this appeal, the net result will be that the company will have to defend another case before MACT which is certainly bound to grant compensation to the claimants. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the scheme of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and under the Motor Vehicles Act are different and the appellant may gain in that. There may be substance in this contention. However, we find that the total compensation awarded including interest for the death of a 29 year old man is only Rs.2,65,000/-. Even if appellant gets any reduction, then it will have to pay cost for 3 litigation in another proceeding. In these circumstances and since appellant will not have much financial gain in another round of litigation, we dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge HARUN-UL-RASHID Judge pms