Bishambhar Dayal, C.J.

1. This is a writ petition by the Northern India Insurance Co., Indore Branch, for quashing an order passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Indore, holding the applicant liable for payment of Rs.8,400 as compensation to Respondent No.2.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Respondent No. 2 was a workman employed by Respondent No. 3. While working on his duty he met with an accident and suffered an injury. Respondent No. 2 filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. During the pendency of this petition, the applicant was made a party at the request of both the parties because the applicant had insured the truck in connection with which the accident had occurred. The applicant filed a written statement and denied all the facts stated by Respondent No. 2 in his claim petition and denied its responsibility to pay the compensation but did not thereafter appear and the proceedings went on ex-pane. The learned Commissioner framed several issues and also framed an additional issue as follows:

Is the opposite party No. 2 liable under the Act to pay compensation to the applicant?

After taking evidence the Commissioner found that the applicant before him was a workman, that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment, that he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 8,400. Then dealing with the liability of the insurance company the Commissioner came to the conclusion that although under the Workmen's Compensation Act the primary liability was that of the employer, yet under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act the insurance company was also liable to discharge the amount as if it was a judgment debtor and consequently observed as follows:

It is therefore observed "that in view of the terms of the said policy the decree may be executed against the insurance company (the opposite parte party No. 2) treating it as a judgment-debtor.

3. In this Court only one point has been argued by learned Counsel appearing for the applicant insurance company and it is that the insurance company could not be made a party to the proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act and no liability could be fastened upon the applicant We have heard learned Counsel at length and we are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. Under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act it has been made quite clear that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount as if it was a judgment debtor under the decree. The insurance company was, therefore, vitally interested in the result of the proceedings. In B.I.G. Insurance Co. v. Cttbar Singh A.LR. 1959 S.C. 1331 It has been decided (See para 16) that the insurance company is entitled to take up all the defences open to the insured if the company has under the insurance agreement reserved that right to itself of defending the claim on behalf of the insured. As a matter of fact, in most of the insurance policies such a right is reserved and the insurance company, therefore, in most of the cases is entitled to defend on all possible grounds. Apart from that, under Sub-section (2) of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act there are some defences only open to the insurance company, and if the insurance company wants to take any of those defences, the insurance company can itself apply to be made a party and take any of those defences. The mere fact that the insurance company is not made a necessary party to the proceedings unless the company wants to take one of those special defences does not mean that otherwise the insurance company is not even a proper party. Since the insurance company has to be served with a notice of the proceedings under the said section and the company is ultimately liable to discharge the claim, it is but proper that the company be impleaded in the proceedings and given a chance to see that the decree is not improperly passed. In this sense the company is certainly a proper party to all the proceedings in which