IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2011 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 MFA.No. 91 of 2006 --------------------------- WCC.419/2002 of COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER),THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MALAPPURAM, NOW REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT AND IST OPPOSITE PARTY: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI, S/O.PAILY, PANICHIYIL HOUSE, PUTHENKADU, THRISSUR. 2. NAVAS, S/O.HAMSA, RAYIMARAKKAR VEETTIL, THEKKUMPURAM, PONNANI SOUTH. R1 BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & A. M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.(WCC) No.91 of 2006-E ----------------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellant is the second opposite party in proceedings under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The case of the applicant before the Commissioner is that he was employed as a Mechanic by the first opposite party and while repairing the vehicle he suffered injury. Hence, the application. The Commissioner has found that there is a contract of insurance, and hence directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,11,213/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident. 2. We heard the learned senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the applicant. Though service is complete on the second respondent, there is no appearance for the second respondent who was the first opposite party before the Commissioner. 3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant insurer cannot be made liable. The policy admittedly is a policy under Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ie., it is a third party policy within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Learned senior counsel for the appellant would complain that the applicant claimed that he is a MFA 91/2006 -2- Mechanic. He would submit that a Mechanic is not one of the categories covered by the proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, there is no liability to cover the Mechanic. Learned counsel for the applicant is unable to convince us that the applicant who is found to be employed as a Mechanic is within the ambit of the contract of insurance in this case. In such circumstances, the contention of the appellant is only to be accepted and we do so. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent that it directs the appellant to pay the amount and the impugned order will stand modified accordingly. We make it clear that, it will be open to the applicant to proceed against the second respondent/employer for recovery of the amount. The entire amount which is deposited by the appellant will be refunded to the appellant. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (A. M. SHAFFIQUE) JUDGE. MS