An insurance policy that does not cover employment injuries and does not indemnify the employer for any compensation paid to the worker does not create any liability on the insurance company to pay compensation to the worker under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in Workmens Compensation Petition No. 97 of 1994.

( 2 ) THE petitioners case is as follows : The petitioner was working as a polisher under the first opposite party on a salary of Rs. 1000/-per month for the past six years. On October 26, 1993 during the course of his employment the petitioner sustained an injury on his right hand. The permanent disability caused to the petitioner on account of this employment injury is 40%. The petitioner has therefore made a claim of Rs. 49,850/ -.

( 3 ) THE first opposite party in their objection statement have not admitted the

employment of the petitioner. They have also contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner and it was a simple injury. He has further contended that a sum of Rs. 1331/-was paid for medical expenses and that the petitioner has not sustained any employment injury to be paid as compensation claimed by him.

( 4 ) THE second opposite party has contended that the petitioner has been insured with a janatha Personal Accident Assurance Policy and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner would not come under the Workmens Compensation Act and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation payable by the 2nd respondent. They have also contended that no notice was issued within one month of the accident and the injury sustained by him is not covered by the policy issued by the 2nd respondent.

( 5 ) ON the above pleadings the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation gave a finding that the injury sustained by the petitioner is an employment injury and he had suffered a permanent disability of 32 % and loss of earning capacity is also 32% and on that basis passed the impugned order directing the 2nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and the 1st respondent a sum of Rs. 6904/-to the petitioner within 30 days failing which the amount payable would also carry 6% interest.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED over the same the second opposite party has come forward with this appeal.

( 7 ) THE appellant is the second opposite party in the petition filed by the workman under the first respondent seeking compensation for the employment injury sustained by him in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment on October 26, 1993, when he was working as a Polisher under the first Opposite Party. The petitioner was working as a Polisher under the Opposite Party on a salary of Rs. 1,000/-per month and on October 26, 1993, in the accident arising out of and in the course of employment, he had sustained injuries on his right hand is not disputed. The petitioner has filed the petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, under the Workmens Compensation Act, seeking compensation in accordance with the salary drawn by him. In the said application, he has impleaded the second Opposite Party on the ground that he had taken a Janatha Personal Accident Assurance Policy, under the Second Opposite Party. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour has held that the petitioner is entitled to compensation as per clause (d) of the policy issued to him and apportioned the compensation payable between the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. It is against this order, under which the second Opposite Party was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner, within 30 days of the order, the second Opposite Party has come forward with this appeal.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that the policy taken by worker is a Janatha Personal Accident Assurance Policy, under which the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the policy-holder of the insured in certain contingencies enumerated in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) and it is not a policy indemnifying the employer of the petitioner under the Workmens Compensation Act and therefore, direction given by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmens Compensation to the second Opposite Party to