Koshy, J.

The appellant was the owner of a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KCF 322. The first respondent, a Field Officer of the appellant company was provided with the above motor vehicle for carrying out the work in connection with the employment. He sustained injuries in an accident while driving the above motor vehicle during the course of employment. He applied for compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act. Workmens Compensation Commissioner allowed the claim and directed the Insurance Company which insured the motor cycle to pay the amount. The Insurance Company filed an appeal and the matter was remanded. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the liability of the Insurance Company is excluded in view of Clause 3(b) of General Exceptions, wherein it is stated the company has no liability if the motor cycle is driven by any person other than a driver. According to the Insurance Company, the conditions of the policy make it clear that only if the vehicle is driven by a paid driver, it is liable to pay the amount. But in the general exception made in the policy, it is not mentioned only if a person engaged as a paid driver is covered. However, since only the workmen compensation liability is covered, the person driving the vehicle must be employed by the insured. In fact driver is specifically included in Section II(3) of the conditions of the policy. A driver who is driving the motor cycle with permission of the injured is specifically covered. But the contentions of Insurance Company was accepted by the Commissioner after remand and the award amount was directed to be paid by the appellant who was the employer of the injured. Hence this appeal was filed. It is the Insurance Company which drafted the policy. It is the settled law that if there is any ambiguity, it should be interpreted against the person who drafted the terms. In United India Insurance Co.Ltd. v M/s Pushpalaya Printers (AIR 2004(2) SC 1700) Apex Court held that If there is any ambiguity in the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the Insurance Company, one that is beneficial to the insured should be accepted. Contention of the Insurance Company is that since the Field Officer is not a paid driver, their liability is excluded cannot be accepted on the plain terms of the policy. As per the policy condition driver was covered and Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as provided under the Workmen Compensation Act. Here, it is not disputed that the appellant was employed by the insured as a Field Officer and accident occurred during the course of the employment. Field Officer was bound to drive the companys motor cycle for official duties. A `driver means a `duly licenced driver. Conditions of Section-II of the Motor Cycles Comprehensive Policy reads as follows:

"Subject to the Limits of Liability, the Company will indemnify the insured in the event of accident caused by or arising out of the use of the Motor Cycle against all sums including Claimants costs and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of

a) death or bodily injury to any person including person conveyed in or on the motor cycle provided such person is not carried for hire or reward but except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of Section 92A and Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of the employment of such person by the insured and excluding liability to any person being conveyed in or on the Motor Cycle unless such person is being conveyed by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment.

b) damage to property other than property belonging to the insured or held in trust by or in the custody or control of the Insured or any member of the Insureds household or being conveyed by the Motor Cycle.

PROVIDED ALWAYS that the Company shall not be liable in respect of death injury or damage caused or arising b