IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 4 of 2004() ------------------- WCC.383/2001 of W.C.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND OPP. PARTY ---------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PARCO TOWER.P.M.RAJ ROAD, KOZHIKODE 73001 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT AND OPP.PARTY-1 ---------------------------------------- 1. BABUMON.P.O., S/O.OUSEPH, PRATHUR HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU, POST VATTUKADU, THRISSUR 14. 2. JOY A.J. S/O.JACOB, ANIKKAL HOUSE, POST VATTUKADU, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 155 OF 2004 IN M.F.A. NO. 4 OF 2004 DISMISSED SD/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE es C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 4 of 2004 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair .J, This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of compensation to the 1st respondent for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claim is not tenable because the 1st respondent claims that the injury said to have been sustained while starting a motorcycle belonged to the 2nd respondent who was the employer of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is the workshop employee and was not a vehicle driver of the 2nd respondent and therefore there is no coverage for him under the policy is the contention of the appellant. However, we find that the 1st respondent had a valid driving licence and was an employee in the workshop owned by the 2nd respondent who was also the owner of the vehicle The counsel for the 1st respondent relied on a decision of this Court in Benz AutoMobiles Ltd Vs. Thomas P.D. & another reported in 2008 (3) ILR 693 and contended that under Section 147 of the M.V.Act, the 1st respondent is covered by the policy as he was an employee of the 2nd respondent and a qualified person to drive the vehicle. We are agreeing with this contention and therefore uphold the liability of the appellant to indemnify the 2nd respondent under the policy. M.F.A. No. 4 of 2004 -2- The next question to be considered regarding the amount of compensation awarded. We find some force in the contention of the appellant that the monthly income fixed for the 1st respondent at Rs.4,000/- is without any basis and on the high side. Having regard to the nature of employment and the fact that the 1st respondent has not much experience in driving, we feel the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- will be reasonable, however, we do not want to interfere with the percentage of disability estimated by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Anyway, on account of the reduction in the monthly income the compensation payable is Rs.78087.75/- ( 1,04,117 - 26029.25) with 12% simple interest from the date of application till the date of payment as granted by the Commissioner This appeal stands allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- M.F.A. No.4 of 2004 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 29th October, 2008