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. 7 of 2005() ------------------- WCC.13/2002 of W.C.C., KANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY ------------------------------------------ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, THIRD PARTY CELL, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENT(S): APPLICANT & FIRST OPPOSITE PARTY ----------------------------------------------- 1. C.UDAYAKUMAR, S/O. GOVINDAN, CHODEVEETTIL HOUSE, ANJARAKKANADI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.PRASEEDA, W/O. PRAKASHAN, VELLOLIL HOUSE, KOLOLAM, EDAYANNUR P.O. ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR R1 SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA FOR R1 SRI.A.K.SRINIVASAN FOR R2 SRI.A.S.BENOY FOR R2 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.F.A.(WC Act) No. 7 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner granting compensation to the first respondent with direction to the appellant to pay the compensation under the policy. Counsel for the appellant submitted that even though the vehicle was transferred, policy was not transferred and so much so the buyer, who is the registered owner and employer of the claimant, was not insured and therefore compensation is not payable by the company under the policy. However, counsel for the first respondent relied on Section 157 of the M.V. Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in G. GOVINDAN V. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., A.I.R. 1999 SC 1398, and contended that employee is entitled to coverage under the policy issued by the company which was still valid. We find that issue is covered by the 2 above referred statutory provision and the decision of the Supreme Court in favour of the first respondent because he as a cleaner sustained injuries while under employment with the registered owner, on account of fall from the top of the truck. The proviso to Section 147 of the MV Act makes it clear that workman of the insured is entitled to compensation without the requirement of any separate coverage. In other words, driver and cleaner of the truck are covered under the policy as employees of the insured. Since transfer does not affect liability, appellant was rightly held to be liable. So far as the challenge against the quantum of compensation is concerned, we find that the award is based on evidence on income and other relevant matters. Appeal is consequently dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 3