Insurance liability depends on the specific terms of the policy and employment status at the time of accident.

JUDGMENT

This is an appeal filed by the 2^nd opposite party in W.C.C.No.23 of 2007 on the files of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur.

2. The 2^nd respondent met with an accident when a motor cycle owned by the 1^st respondent and ridden by the 2^nd respondent capsized on 03.11.2006 on the Irinjalakuda Chandakkunnu- Moonnupedika public road. The 2^nd respondent claims that he was employed as a driver of a tanker lorry of the 1^st opposite party and he was proceeding to Moonupedika by riding the motorcycle to purchase spare parts for the tanker lorry. The 2^nd respondent contended that the accident occurred during the course of employment and out of employment and hence he was entitled for compensation.

3. Before the Commissioner, the appellant filed written statement denying the employer-employee relationship as well as liability to indemnify the 1^st respondent. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 of the written statement filed by the appellant reads as under: “3. This opposite party admits that this opposite party has issued a policy in the name of first opposite party herein, to a motorcycle bearing Regn. No:KL-8K 2 valid for the period from 06-10-2006 to 05-10-2007. The liability of this opposite party is as per the Act only. This opposite party issued a 'liability only policy and no premium was collected for any driver (rider) or pillion rider of the motorcycle. Under P.A. liability Rs.50/- is collected only for the coverage of the injuries sustained to the insured only in the accident. Since the policy issued is a liability only policy and no premium was collected for the rider of the vehicle, this opposite party denies its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the injuries sustained to the rider of the vehicle.

4. This opposite party denies the averments stated in para 1 of the application that the applicant was a workman employed as driver, sustained bodily injuries in an accident occurred during the course of his lawful employment under the first opposite party. This opposite party categorically denies and disputes that the alleged accident had occurred during the course of lawful employment of applicant under the first opposite party. If at all any injuries are sustained to the applicant, that is not in an accident occurred during the course of his lawful employment or in the notional extension of time of his employment.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

7. The age and monthly wages stated in para 4 of the application are denied by this opposite party, since not supported by any documents. Unless and until the applicant has proved that the alleged accident has occurred during the course of his employment under first opposite party he is not entitled to get or claim any lumpsum as compensation. The compensation amount claimed is highly exorbitant, baseless and not allowable also.”

Thus the appellant specifically denied the liability to indemnify the 1^st respondent. However the Commissioner found that the 2^nd respondent is entitled for compensation and directed the appellant to pay the amount as the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.

4. Though notice was issued and service is complete, there is no appearance for the respondents.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner has not properly framed issues in this case. He submitted that though the appellant specifically denied its liability to indemnify the insured and contended that the policy was only an Act only policy issued with respect to the motor cycle which will not cover liabilities arising out of Employees Compensation Act, the Commissioner erroneously held that the appellant was liable to indemnify the insured. The learned counsel pointed out that there is no discussion in the impugned order regarding