1. The appellant has challenged the order dated 07th January, 2016 whereby the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation has awarded compensation of Rs.6,70,160/- to respondents No. 1 to 5.

2. On 17th May, 2014, late Khushal Singh was driving truck bearing no. HR-38-N-0917 from Meerut to Delhi during the course of his employment with respondent no. 6. At about 9:30 pm, the driver stopped the truck near CHD Canteen (Post Office) and was crossing the road when he was hit by a scooter which resulted in fatal injuries. The truck in question was validly insured with the appellant and the insurance policy covered the liability under the Employees’ Compensation Act in respect of the driver of the truck.

3. The deceased, Khushal Singh was survived by his widow, three sons and mother who have filed application for compensation before the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation. The appellant contested the application on the ground that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and therefore, the appellant was not liable.

4. The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation held that the deceased was employed with respondent no. 6 as a driver at the time of the accident; the accident arose out of and during the course of his employment and the vehicle was validly insured with the appellant. The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation computed the compensation of Rs.6,70,160/- along with the interest @ 12% per annum.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of the hearing that the insured vehicle was stationary at the time of the accident and the deceased was crossing the road when he was hit by the scooter. It is submitted that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the appellant issued the policy under the proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the appellant can be held liable only if the insured vehicle is directly involved in the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the statutory policy under the proviso to Section 147 is different from an ordinary policy under the Employees’ Compensation Act and their coverage cannot be equated. Reliance is placed on Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. & Ors., 2010 (2) SCC 536 and Malikarjuna G. Hiremath v. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., AIR 2009 SC 2019.

6. Under the proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company has to mandatorily cover the liability arising under the Employees’ Compensation Act in respect of death or bodily injury to the driver. The proviso to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act is reproduced hereunder:

“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, 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 conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or

(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or

(ii) to cover any contractual liability.”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. This Court is of the prima facie view that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation to respondent no.1 since there is a valid insurance policy to cover the liability of the appellant under the Employees Compensation Act and neither the insurance policy nor Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act restricts the liability of the insurance company under the Employees’ Compensation Act. In FAO No.35/2012, FAO No.106/2012 and FAO No.379/2014, this Court directed IRDA to re-visit the terms and conditions of the insuranc