J U D G M E N T

The 1^st opposite party in ECC No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur has filed this appeal aggrieved by the finding of the learned Commissioner that the 2^nd respondent herein is not bound to indemnify the appellant.

2. The 1^st respondent met with an accident while working as a cleaner in a tempo van bearing Registration No.KL-T-1969 owned by the appellant.

3. The learned Commissioner accepted the contention of the 1^st respondent that he was an employee of the appellant. For the said purpose, the document marked as Ext.A7 was relied on. The same was issued by Senior Administrative Manager of “Manjilas Rice Mill”.

4. The 2^nd respondent insurance company denied that the vehicle was insured with it at the relevant time. It was pointed out that details of the policy were not stated in the application. The company denied the liability to indemnify the appellant. Further it was contended that the appellant was not holding valid registration certificate, fitness certificate or permit for the vehicle. It was also contended that the claimant had no driving license at the time of accident.

5. Ext.A4 cover note issued by the 2^nd respondent w