Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.

These two appeals are by the insurer challenging the award passed by the Commissioner for a Workmen’s awarding compensation of Rs.1,57,572/-and Rs.1,72,992/-in Claim Nos.86 and 86 of 2006, respectively, on the ground that the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to two of the employees who sustained injuries while removing the cylinders due to fire mischief and that has been challenged.

2. According to the submission of the Learned counsel for the insurer the award so passed under the head fidelity guarantee for four employees for which premium is collected is not attracted in the case on hand and there is no separate premium being paid towards the employment injuries. Accordingly sought for setting aside the award passed stating that insurer is liable to pay compensation for the above act.

3. Heard the arguments of the Counsel for the respective parties.

4. As per the facts, on 23-3-2006 as per the direction of the employer while the workmen were keeping the gas cylinders in order, due to the negligent act, cylinder fell on one Siddappa who was a coolie working therein and has caused injuries to his head wherein he was treated at Naik Nursing Home, Bijapur and also cylinder fell on one Anil on his shoulder and right leg and even though he had spent Rs.20,00/-towards medical expenses there was grievous injuries. Both Anil and Siddappa filed the claim petitions.

5. The matter was contested by the insurance company and also the owner by filing statement of objections. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation while awarding compensation held that the workmen suffered injuries and under the head fidelity guarantee, there is coverage for four persons and ordered that the insurer is liable to pay compensation. As against the said order, appellant preferred these appeals on various grounds.

6. According to the Learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer, the policy defines fidelity guarantee which covers four employees. It is seen, in respect of the injuries sustained by workmen or the employees it is only against the pecuniary loss which the insurer would sustain due to the act of fraud or dishonesty. In view of the same, the claimants would not be entitled to claim compensation from the insurer. There is no separate premium being paid for the injuries sustained by them, the premium so collected on other heads do not cover the liability and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation ordered the insurer to pay the compensation.

7. The Learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer taking me through the policy clause submitted that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation as ordered by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation.

8. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the insured submitted that there is no illegality committed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in fastening liability on the insurer on the ground that as per the cover note issued it provides for LP Gas Traders combined policy. The very reading of the same denotes that it covers all types of risks to the extent of the amount insured including employment injuries and consequential injuries sustained by the employees. Under Clause 7 of Fidelity Guarantee it is covered for the four employees which also covers the negligent act for which the employer is made liable due to the dishonest act which also refers to the negligence on the part of the workmen. Ultimately, if workmen suffers injuries the liability will be on the insurer to pay compensation for the employment injury in so far as there is insurance coverage and premium is being paid on that. Accordingly, referring to the provisions in the England regarding Employers Liability, personal accident and combined policies, contended that the combined policy refers to the coverage of the risk for which insurer would be liable, that would be made good by way of indemnification by the insurer.

9. In the light of the arguments advanced, the point that arises