The insurer's liability under the Employees Compensation Act hinges on the existence of a valid employer-employee relationship and compliance with policy conditions.

JUDGMENT

Appellant is the 2^nd opposite party in ECC No.54/2018 on the files of the Employees Compensation Commission (Industrial Tribunal), Thrissur.

2. The ECC was filed by the 1st respondent.

According to the 1^st respondent, he was employed as a conductor in a bus bearing registration number KL 10/V 9631 owned by the 2^nd respondent herein. On 07.06.2016, at about 4.35 pm, while he was on duty in the bus, he met with an accident. When the bus reached “Kochipadi” in Kunnamkulam- Edappal-Althara route, the bus fell into a gutter and in the sudden jerk, the 1^st respondent was thrown out of the bus through the front door. He sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to a nearby hospital. After first aid he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, wherein he was treated as in-patient from 07.06.2016 to 14.06.2016. On account of the accident, he suffered serious injuries resulting in permanent disability. No compensation was paid by the employer, the 2^nd respondent. Hence, he approached the Employees Compensation Commission.

3. Appellant herein resisted the case by filing a written statement. Appellant contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between respondents 1 and 2. It was also contended by the appellant that the 1^st respondent/claimant was not having a valid license to work as a conductor, at the relevant point of time. Apart from the above mentioned two aspects, all other contentions raised by the 1^st respondent were denied by the appellant in its written statement. The 2^nd respondent herein, the employer written statement admitting the employer-employee relationship.

4. During the trial before the Commissioner, the

1^st respondent was examined as AW1 and a Professor of Orthopedic Department, Government Medical College, Palakkad, was examined as AW2. Exts.A1 and A15 were marked from the side of the 1^st respondent/claimant. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant and the 1^st respondent. Appellant got Exts.R1 to R2 marked with. 5. On conclusion of trial, the learned Commissioner heard the parties and allowed the application by granting an amount of Rs.4,35,288/- as compensation. It was also held that the applicant shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident, till the date of payment. An amount of Rs.49,730/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the claim was granted towards reimbursement of the medical expenses. Further an amount of Rs.1,400/- was awarded as cost for payment of court fee. The appellant was held to be liable to indemnify the employer. The appellant was directed to produce an account payee cheque drawn in favour of the claimant for the amounts awarded. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner, this appeal was filed.

6. Appellant has raised the following questions as substantial questions of law arising for consideration in this appeal:-

“1.Whether the Employees Compensation Commissioner is justified in passing an order, by ignoring the contractual obligations between the insurer and the insured and also the violation of the statutory requirements regarding the possession of valid license to act as a conductor.

2. Whether the Employees Compensation Commissioner is justified in passing the award, without observing anything on the evidentiary value of the letter issued by the Joint RTO,(Exhibit R2) that the applicant was not holding any conductor license, which is the crucialelement to act as a conductor and to prove the employment of the applicant, including the determination of whether the applicant sustained injury arising out of employment.”

However, on 16.10.2025, the appeal was admitted only on the

1^st question of law framed in the memorandum of appeal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

Though service is complete, there is no appearance for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel fo