A. Hariprasad, J

1. M.F.A. (WCC) No.197 of 2006 is an appeal filed by the insurer/2nd opposite party disputing the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thrissur in W.C.C.No.208 of 1997 in favour of the employee/1st respondent. The challenge is against the nature and extent of liability of the insurer. M.F.A.No.1 of 2007 is filed by the employer/1st opposite party disputing the correctness of the award to the extent which is against him. Parties are hereinafter referred to as insurer, employer and employee respectively.

2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the appeals are as follows: Employee was working as a toddy tapper. On 25.09.1995, at about 5.30 p.m. he fell down from a coconut tree and the accident occurred in the course of his employment. He was working for the employer. According to the employee, he sustained commuted fracture of right hip, dislocation of right elbow with fracture head of radius, fracture of metacarpal bones of right hand, bilateral calcanical fracture and dislocation of bones of right hand. Contention raised by the employee is that on account of the injuries, he sustained permanent partial disability, seriously affecting his earning power. Hence he claimed compensation of Rs 5,00,000/- from the employer and the insurer.

3. Employer admitted that the employee was in his service at the time of accident. Contention of the employee that he sustained injury in the course of employment is denied by the employer. Employer disputed the quantum of claim and the liability to pay compensation. Further, he contended that if at all the employee is eligible for any compensation, it shall be paid by the insurer as there was a contract of insurance subsisting at the material time between the employer and the insurer.

4. Insurer opposed the claim of the employee by raising the following contentions: Insurer has no liability under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, "Act of 1923"). The insurance company has not issued a policy covering such a liability of the employer. Employer has taken a Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Group). By the terms of that policy, the insurer has no liability at all to pay compensation under the Act of 1923. The terms and conditions in the Personal Accident Insurance Policy (Group) will make it clear that only an ascertained sum need to be paid by the insurance company and the insurance company has no liability to pay interest.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company and the employee. We carefully perused the records.

6. It is noticed on perusal of the records that in M.F.A.No.1 of 2007 filed by the employer, no substantial question of law was raised as mandated in Section 30 of the Act of 1923.

7. Substantial questions of law urged for consideration in M.F.A. (WCC) No.197 of 2006 are the following: a) When there is no contract between the employer and the appellant insurance company to indemnify the liability of the former in respect of Workmen's Compensation Act, is it competent for the Commissioner to make the insurance company liable to pay the statutory compensation fixed under the Employee's Compensation Act? b) When the liability of the appellant insurance company is purely contractual, can the Commissioner fasten an altogether different liability on the appellant insurance company? c) Can the Commissioner pass an order contrary to the evidence before him and is not the order passed in this case perverse? d) Is not the loss of earning capacity to be assessed with respect to all types of employment as laid in the Full Bench decision in Vanajakshan v. Joseph (2003 (2) KLT 462) and whether the loss of earning capacity fixed in this case is legal? e) Can the insurer be made liable to pay interest in the light of the contractual provisions?

8. Learned counsel for the insurer, Shri Rajan P.Kaliyath submitted that the Commissioner committed a grave legal error in rejecting the contentions of the compan