Ramachandran Nair, J.

Appeal is filed challenging the order of the MACT rejecting appellants claim for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident for the reason that he as driver of the vehicle caused the accident on account of his negligence. It is the view of the MACT that tortfeasor is not entitled to compesation and the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured against such claims. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. We have also gone through the insurace policy which is a comprehensive (B) policy covering the driver of the insured specifically for liability under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.

2. Counsel for the appellant relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Malathi C Salian (2003) 3 K.L.T. 460 and contended that even if appellant was negligent and caused the accident, he is still entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Standing counsel appearing for the insurance company on the other hand contended that appellants claim under Section 163 A should be considered under Workmens Compen