IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MFA.No. 207 of 2008(G) ---------------------------- WCC.166/2002 of W.C.C., KANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY: ----------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THALASSERY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/ APPLICANT AND OPPOSITE PARTIES 1, 4 TO 12. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. O.K. MOHANAN, S/O ANANDA KURUP, PUTHENPURA HOUSE, KOLARY AMSOM, MATTANNUR P.O. 2. P.P. SIVADASAN, S/O DEVADA, VAYAKKARA, PADIYOTHACHAL P.O. PAYYANNUR. 3. THANNADA PUTHIYAPURAYIL KADEESU, D/O IBAHIM, THANNADA PUTHIYAPURAYIL, MATTANNUR P.O. KALAROAD. 4. T.P. SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O AHAMMED KUTTY, DO. DO. 5. SUHARA, D/O AHAMMED KUTTY, DO. DO. 6. RASHEED, S/O AHAMMED KUTTY, DO. DO. 7. NASSER, S/O AHAMMED KUTTY, DO. DO. 8. NISSAR, S/O AHAMMED KUTTY, DO. DO. 9. SIRAJ, S/O AHAMMED KUTTY, DO. DO. 10. NOUSHAD, S/O AHAMMED KUTTY, DO. DO. 11. RIYAS, S/O AHAMMED KUTTY, DO. DO. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A.(W.C.C.) NO. 207 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kannur in W.C.C.166/02. The claimant sustained injuries as a driver and claimed compensation and the Commissioner has awarded Rs.15,000/- u/s 4(1)(d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Aggrieved by the said decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. It is contended that the first opposite party is not the owner of the vehicle and therefore the insurance company is not bound to indemnify. According to the insurance company there was an agreement with one Ahammed Kutty and he was the owner in possession on the date of the accident. The Compensation Commissioner extracted the evidence of AW1 and held that there is no evidence to prove that Ahammed Kutty was the owner. Whatever it may be admittedly the vehicle is covered by a M.F.A. 207 OF 2008 -:2:- policy and even if the registration is transferred in the name of Ahammed Kutty accepting for argument sake that he is the owner of the vehicle the deemed provision u/s 157 of the M.V.Act would show that the policy runs with the vehicle and not with the individual and therefore that contention cannot be accepted. Secondly, regarding the interest. In the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Rekha (2007 (4) KLT 386) this Court has considered the Apex Court decision cited therein and held that there is a larger Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata (AIR 1976 SC 222) and further held that when there is a conflict among the decisions of the Supreme Court the Larger Bench decision will prevail. Therefore the Division Bench held that entitlement of interest is from the date of accident. So this contention also cannot be accepted. So I do not find any mistake in the finding of the Compensation Commissioner. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-