Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1. These appeals are against an award passed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, for short, 'WC Act'. The owners of a premises (Kalyanamandapam) and the insurer from whom they had taken a policy of insurance are the appellants.

2.Going by the material facts disclosed by the pleadings and the evidence on record, it is not disputed by the owners that one Firoz, engaged to clean the windows, doors etc., in the course of preparation of painting works of the premises fell down from a height while working and died in the course of his such engagement. His parents, widow and son made the claim. The commissioner found employer-employee relationship and held that there was a valid insurance cover. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed directing the insurer to indemnify the owners and requiring the owners to pay the interest component under Section 4(A) of the WC Act.

3.The insurer's appeal is on the ground that liability under the WC Act is not covered by the public liability policy (for non-industrial risks) issued by it and evidenced by Ext.B1. The owners appeal against the direction to pay the interest component.

4.Insurer's learned counsel argued that "injury to any person under a contract of employment or apprenticeship with the Insured when such injury arises out of the execution of such contract" is excluded/exempted as per Clause 8.15 in Ext.B1. The scope of indemnity as per Clause 4.1 of Ext. P1 extends only to liabilities that the insured may incur on account of actions of his/their employees and the provisions do not provide indemnity cover for any liability that the insured may incur qua any employee or apprentice, it is argued.

5. Learned senior counsel for the owners argued that the interpretation placed by the court below on the provisions of Ext.B1 policy is one that cannot be said to be wholly unavailable on a true construction of clauses 4.1 and 8.15 thereof and that therefore, the insurer's appeal fails. He further argued that the owners' appeal is to be allowed directing the insurer to pay the interest component also.

6.On behalf of the claimants, their learned counsel pointed out that the liability of the insurer cannot be wiped off; however that, at any rate, the liability has to be satisfied by either the insurer or the owners.

7.The owners, as already noted, had engaged late Firoz to work in cleaning doors, windows etc. in the course of the painting operations for the upkeep of their premises, a marriage hall. The jural relationship between the owners of that premises and Firoz is one that makes the owners, the employer of Firoz for the purpose of such employment in terms of the definition of the term "employer" in S.2(1)(e) of the WC Act.

8. Ext.B1 is a Public Liability Policy. It clearly stipulates that "injury to any person under a contract of employment or apprenticeship with the Insured when such injury arises out of the execution of such contract" is exempted as per clause 8.15 thereof. Such a policy is governed by the provisions of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, hereinafter called the 'PLI Act'. Section 3 of that Act casts liability to give relief in certain cases on principle of "no fault". Sub-section (1) of that section provides that where death or injury to any person (other than a workman) or damage to any property has resulted from an accident, the owner shall be liable to give such relief, as is specified in the schedule, for such death, injury or damage. The phrase "(other than workman)" in that sub-section is explained through the Explanation, which, inter alia, states that for the purpose of section 3, 'workman' has the same meaning as in the WC Act. This means that a 'workman' as defined in WC Act, stands excluded from the operation and ambit of the PLI Act. Section 4 of the PLI Act makes it obligatory on the owner of such premises to take insurance policies to cover liability arising under the PLI Act. As already noticed, the liabilities u