JUDGMENT
Fakhruddin, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act against the order dated 10.5.1996 passed by the Presiding Officer, labour Court No. 2 in Case No. 16 of 1994, WCA (Fatal).
2. The facts leading to file this appeal are that an accident had occurred in which the appellant’s son Karansingh aged 22 years died. It is alleged that Karansingh was sitting in the truck No. MKW 7699, as he was working as a labourer. The claim was preferred before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2 for compensation on account of death by the appellant Lattu Ram and along with the claim an application for interim award on the ground of no fault liability was also filed. The Claims Tribunal (sic. Commissioner) allowed the same and directed the interim award to be paid by the respondent No. 1 exonerating the respondent No. 2. Having been aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act on the ground that respondent No. 2 has wrongly been exonerated.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case when the accident took place the vehicle in question was insured. It is contended that the learned Claims Tribunal (sic. Commissioner) had committed an illegality in exonerating the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in Motor Owners’ Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC), that the liability of the insured and, therefore, the insurer’s indemnity includes the liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Learned counsel also relied on a decision of this Court in Dwarika v. Biso, 1990 ACJ 283 (MP). It is a case of death of a passenger travelling on a tractor and the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from no fault liability on the ground that the deceased was travelling on the tractor and he was not a third party and this Court held that the Tribunal is not bound to enquire at this stage as to sustainability or otherwise of the objections raised by the insurance company. This observation is contained in para 15 of the judgment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the respondents referred to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is quoted as under:
Section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. — (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which —
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2) —
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:
Provided that a policy shall not be required —
(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee —
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle; or
(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle; or
(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle; or
(ii) to cover any contractual liability.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that though the vehicle in question was insured but according to the policy the insurance company is not liable.
6. Having considered the contentions of the rival parties, in the opinion of this Court, so far as interim award is concerned, the law is well settled.
7. In view of the observations made in the case of Motor Owners’ Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC) and the decision of this Court in Dwarika v. Biso, 1990 ACJ 283 (MP), the appeal is allowed. In supersession of the impugned order it is held that the insurance company, respondent No. 2 shall be jointly and severally liable along with respondent No. 1, to satisfy the interim award. There shall be no order as to costs.