When Sri Kola Subba Rao and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Counsel, are requested to assist this Court, as amicus curiaes, they readily accepted.

2. Heard both sides.

3. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order and decree, dated 30.1.1997, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kurnool (for brevity "the competent authority under the Act"), partly allowing W.C. No.24 of 1995 filed under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, awarding a sum of Rs.60,502/-, as against the claim of Rs.1,00,220/-, fastening the liability only against the first respondent therein, for the death of one Dudekula Mader Sab, during the course of his employment as Hamali.

4. Appellant is the claimant, respondent No.1 is the owner of tractor and trailor bearing Registration Nos.AP.21.U-186 and AP.21.U-187, respectively, and respondent No.2 is the New India Assurance Company Limited, in the O.P., before the Court below.

5. For the sake of convenience, the appellant, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 will be referred to as "the claimant", "the insured" and "the insurer", respectively.

6. The particulars as regards the manner in which the accident has occurred and other related aspects are not worth mentioning since the same are not in dispute.

7. The only point that arises for consideration, in this civil miscellaneous appeal, is whether the competent authority under the Act was in error in awarding a sum of Rs.60,502/- as compensation, fastening the liability only on the insured cum-employer of the deceased?

8. The competent authority under the Act, after adjudicating the entire issue, awarded the aforesaid compensation, fastening the entire liability only on the insured (i.e., the employer of the deceased) and dismissed the claim as against the Insurer.

9. Learned Counsel for the claimant mainly contended that the competent authority under the Act went wrong in exonerating the insurer from its liability of paying the compensation and fastening the liability only against the insured. He lays much stress on sub-clause (c) of Clause (i) of Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') and contends that no policy need be taken at all, in which case the insurer is at an obligation to pay the compensation.

10. Section 147 of the Act deals with the aspect of taking the policies and the limits of liability.

11. For convenience and ready reference, it is apt to extract Section 147 of the Act, which is thus :

"Requirements of policies and limits of liability:-(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; and

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)-

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily (injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle) or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:

Provided that a policy shall not be required-

(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-

(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or

(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle; or

(c) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor o