JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair .J, This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of compensation to the 1st respondent for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claim is not tenable because the 1st respondent claims that the injury said to have been sustained while starting a motorcycle belonged to the 2nd respondent who was the employer of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is the workshop employee and was not a vehicle driver of the 2nd respondent and therefore there is no coverage for him under the policy is the contention of the appellant. However, we find that the 1st respondent had a valid driving licence and was an employee in the workshop owned by the 2nd respondent who was also the owner of the vehicle The counsel for the 1st respondent relied on a decision of this Court in Benz AutoMobiles Ltd Vs. Thomas P.D. & another reported in 2008 (3) ILR 693 and contended that under Section 147 of the M.V.Act, the 1st respondent is covered by the policy as he was an employee of the 2nd respondent and a qualified person to drive the vehicle. We are agreeing with this contention and therefore uphold the