The Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation under the policy for headload workers engaged in unloading goods.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is the 2^nd opposite party, Insurance Company, before the Employees Compensation Commissioner. The 1^st respondent/applicant filed the application claiming compensation for the personal injury sustained by him on 03.07.2010 while he was unloading goods from a vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 8/AM 2921. The vehicle belonged to the 1^st opposite party and the same was insured with the 2^nd opposite party. Respondents 3 and 4 are the Secretary of the Head Load Worker’s Welfare Fund Board, Trivandrum and the Secretary of the Head Load Worker’s Union, Mannuthy, since the applicant was having a registration under Rule

6A of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme,1983.

2. The Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.1,36,483/- with interest @ 12% per annum, Rs.15,951/- being the reimbursement of medical expenditure with cost of Rs.400/- and directed the 2^nd opposite party to pay the award amount in view of the Ext.R1 policy issued by the 2^nd opposite party for the vehicle involved in the accident.

3. This Court admitted the appeal on 22.08.2022 on the substantial questions of law framed in the Memorandum of Appeal.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Raji T. Bhaskar, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, Sri. P.V. Chandra Mohan and the learned Senior counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, Sri. Benny P.

Thomas.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation since no additional premium was collected for any person other than the driver in the Ext.R1 policy. Clause (c) of the first Proviso to Section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, covers only a person being carried in the vehicle. The vehicle involved in the accident is a goods autorickshaw in which another person could not be carried. Since the applicant/headload worker was not carried in the vehicle, he could not be covered under the Ext.R1 policy. The learned counsel further contended that Ext.X1, the original case record of the Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur, where the applicant was treated, would reveal that the applicant sustained injury from a fall from a bike and not while doing unloading work from the goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KL 8/AM 2921. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf v. United India Insurance Co. [2010 (4) KLT Suppl. 30 (SC)], in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which denied compensation to the headload worker referring to of the .

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent contended that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Razaque [2023 (6) KLT 701] and there is nothing to be interfered with in the impugned award. The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent further contended that Ext.X1 was not properly proved before the Commissioner. Even the cause of the accident stated in Ext.X1 is a fall from the bike/loading vehicle. Hence, it could not be said that the accident was a fall from a bike. The learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents 3 and

4 contended that the Applicant has given evidence that the Applicant was doing the unloading work in his personal capacity and not deputed by the Union. In such a case, the applicant could not be treated as an employee of the 4^th opposite party with respect to the subject work.

7. I have considered the rival contentions.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation on the basis of the Ext.R1 policy since no premium is collected for any person other than the driver.