N. VENKATACHALA, J. ( 1 ) WHETHER this appeal of the insurer filed under Section 30 (1) of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the WC Act') against an award made by the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, by which it is made liable to pay compensation for death or bodily injury of a person on the basis of Certificate of Insurance issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 in Chapter XI of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act'), is maintainable if it is not founded on a ground by which an insurer was entitled to defend under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act an action for compensation, being an important question arising for our consideration in deciding this appeal, we shall proceed to consider the same. ( 2 ) APPELLANT-INSURER had issued the 'certificate of Insurance' under sub-section (3) of Section 147 of the MV Act in favour of the second respondent-insured, the employer, covering his liability under the WC Act for death or bodily injury of his workman, the first respondent, who was the driver of a matador van bearing registration no, CTU 3000, a motor vehicle. That motor vehicle when was being driven on the National High Way No. 4 on 22-10-1989 by the first respondent, in the course of his employment under the second respondent, an accident occurred. As a result of that accident, the first respondent suffered severe bodily injuries affecting his right eye and causing fractures of his right hand just below the elbow joint and two ribs. Consequently, the first respondent claimed compensation for his bodily injuries, which totally impaired his ability to drive a motor vehicle, from his employer, the second respondent, and the insurer-appellant, which had issued a 'certificate of insurance' for the motor vehicle, by filing an application therefore under the WC act before Ihe Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Tumkur (for short 'the commissioner' ). The Commissioner, who took into consideration bodily injuries suffered by the first respondent, which had disabled him from carrying on his driving occupation, by his award under appeal, held the second respondent to be liable for payment of amount of Rs. 89,730-00 as compensation under the WC Act and directed its payment together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till its payment by the second respondent-employer and the appellant-insurer. 89,730-00 as compensation under the WC Act and directed its payment together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accident till its payment by the second respondent-employer and the appellant-insurer. ( 3 ) IN this appeal of the insurer filed under Section 30 (1) of the WC Act against the said award of the Commissioner, the amount of compensation awarded to the first respondent as computed under the provisions of the WC Act, is questioned as excessive, on grounds other than those by which it, as an insurer, would have been entitled to defend a claim for compensation under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV act It is how the question, which is formulated by us at the outset, has arisen for our consideration in deciding this appeal. ( 4 ) AS we have to find an answer to the said question from the material provisions of the MV Act and the WC Act, which bear upon it, we shall advert to those provisions to have the advantage of finding an answer from them. ( 5 ) CHAPTER XI of the MV Act contains provisions relating to compulsory insurancefor risks arising from accidents in the use of motor vehicles in public places. Section 146 of the MV Act is a provision in that chapter which declares that a person can use or cause or allow any other person to use a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI. Provision in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the MV Act in Chapter XI declares that the policy of insurance, which is required to be compulsorily taken for the use of, causing the use of or allowing the use of a motor vehicle in a public place, must cover a liability arising under the WC Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of death of, or bodily injury to, an 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. Provision in sub-section (3) of Section 147 of the MV Act of Ihe same chapter declares that a Policy of Insurance to be taken for the purpose of Chapter XI would be of no effect unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the Policy is effected 'a Certificate of Insurance'. Provision in sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the MV Act of the same chapter requires the insurer who will have issued 'a Certificate of Insurance' under sub-section (3) of Section 147 of the MV Act to satisfy Judgment or awards to be made against the person insured by paying to the person entitled to the benefit of such Judgment or awards (decree) any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if the insurer was the Judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on Judgments (awards ). Provision in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act of the same Chapter runs thus:"no sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any Judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the Judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such Judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the Policy being one of the following conditions, namely: (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor vehicle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons orby any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the Policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the nondisclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. Provision in sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the MV Act of the same Chapter declares thus: "no insurer to whom the notice referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any such Judgment or award as is referred to in sub-section (1) or in such Judgment as is referred to in sub-section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided. For the purpose of this section, "claims Tribunal" means a claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 and "award" means an award made by that Tribunal under Section 168". Provision in Section 167 of the MV Act of the same Chapter gives option to the claimants to choose the forum for claiming compensation, thus: "notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both". Provision in Section 173 of the MV Act of the same Chapter provides for an appeal from an award of a Claims Tribunal, thus:" (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty five thousand rupees or fifty per cent, of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. " ( 6 ) WHEN we come to the provisions of the WC Act, Section 3 of the WC Actprovides for employer's liability for compensation. Section 4 there of refers to the manner of computation of the compensation payable under Section 3 thereof. Section 4-A thereof states that the compensation fixed under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. Sub-section (3) of Section 4-A thereof refers to a case of an employer committing default in paying compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, and, the Commissioner in such a case making him liable for interest and penalty as provided for therein. Section 5 thereof provides for the method of computing wages of a workman which becomes necessary for computing the amount of compensation payable for the workman's death or bodily injuries. Section 30 of the WC Act provides for filing of the appeal against the order (award) of the Commissioner thus:" (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a commissioner, namely: (a) an order awarding as compensation a lumpsum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment orotherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lumpsum; (aa ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d)::: -. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -. :::: (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 7 ) WHAT emerges from the aforementioned provisions of the MV Act and the WC Act, has now to be seen for finding an answer to the question under consideration. Taking of 'a Certificate of Insurance' to be issued by an insurer to cover the liability of a person to pay compensation for death of or bodily injury to (a) the driver of the vehicle; (b) the conductor of the vehicle or ticket examiner; (c) the employee carried in a goods vehicle, arising from the use of a motor vehicle in a public place, which is a liability under the WC Act, is made compulsory under the provisions of section 146, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 and sub-section (3) of Section 147 of the MV Act. The insurer, who will have issued 'a Certificate of Insurance' under sub-sect ion (3) of Section 147 covering the liability of person arising from the use of a motor vehicle in a public place for payment of compensation respecting his employee's death or bodily injury, is required under sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the MV Act, to satisfy the Judgment or award made against the person insured. Sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the M V Act, which requires that the insurer should be made a party to a proceeding to make him liable for payment of compensation on behalf of the insured respecting a Judgment or award to be made therein, enables him to defend the action (claim) for compensation on the only or any of the grounds mentioned therein and no other. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the MV Act in specific terms stales that the insurer cannot avoid his liability to any person who may become entitled to the benefit of any Judgment or award under sub-section (1) thereof otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2) thereof. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the MV Act in specific terms stales that the insurer cannot avoid his liability to any person who may become entitled to the benefit of any Judgment or award under sub-section (1) thereof otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2) thereof. ( 8 ) AS what is stated by our Supreme Court respecting sub-sections (2) and (6) of section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in British India General Insurance company Ltd. v Captain Itbar Singh and Others, AIR 1959 SC 1331 , would squarely hold good respecting the corresponding sub-sections (2) and (7) of Section 149 of the M V Act, 1988, which are substantially the same, it may be excerpted:" (5) To start with it is necessary to remember that apart from the statute an insurer has no right to be made a party to the action by the injured person against the insured causing the injury. Sub-section (2) of the Section 96 however gives him the right to be made a parly to the suit and to defend it. The right therefore is created by statute and its content necessarily depends on the provisions of the statute. The question then really is, what are the defences that sub-section (2) makes available to an insurer? That clearly is a question of interpretation of the sub-section. (6) Now the language of sub-section (2) seems to us to be perfectly plain and to admit of no doubt or confusion. It is that an insurer to whom the requisite notice of the action has been given "shall be entitled to be made a parly thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely", after which comes an enumeration of the grounds. It would follow that an insurer is entitled to defend on any of the grounds enumetated and no others. If it were not so, then of course no grounds need have been enumerated. When the grounds of defence have been specified, they cannot be added to. To do that would be adding words to the statute. (7) Sub-section (6) also indicates clearly how sub-section (2) should be read. It says that no insurer to whom the notice of the action has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability under sub-section (1) "otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2)". To do that would be adding words to the statute. (7) Sub-section (6) also indicates clearly how sub-section (2) should be read. It says that no insurer to whom the notice of the action has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability under sub-section (1) "otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2)". Now the only manner of avoiding liability provided for in sub-section (2) is by successfully raising any of the defences therein mentioned. It comes then to this that the insurer cannot avoid his liability except by establishing such defences. Therefore, sub-section (6) clearly contemplates that he cannot take any defence not mentioned in sub-section (2 ). If he could, then be would have been in a position to avoid his liability in a manner other than that provided for in sub-section (2 ). That is prohibited by sub-section (6 ). (8) We therefore think that sub-section (2) clearly provides that an insurer made a defendant to the action is not entitled to take any defence which is not specified in it". The above decision of the Supreme Court, it is not disputed, makes it clear that the insurer who will have issued 'a Certificate of Insurance under Chapter XI of the MV act covering the liability of a person for payment of compensation for the death of or bodily injuries to, certain persons arising from the use of a motor vehicle in a public place, cannot defend an action (claim) in a proceeding brought in that regard impleading him (it) as a party to such proceeding except on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act and no other. There fore, if the action for compensation arising in the use of a motor vehicle in a public place is taken against the insured person by institution of a proceeding before a Claims tribunal envisaged under the MV Actby making the insurer, who has issued 'a Certificate of Insurance' under Chapterxi of the MV Act covering the liability of the insured person, the insurer could seek to defend such action only by raising any of the grounds made available to him under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the M V Act and no other. From this it follows, as a necessary corollary, that an award made by the Claims Tribunal envisaged under the MV Act, cannot be appealed against by the insurer by filling an appeal under Section 173 of the M V Act, unless the ground urged in support of such appeal could be any of the grounds in sub-section (2) of Section 149, on which an action for compensation could have been defended by him (it ). ( 9 ) WHEN a 'policy of Insurance' issued under Chapter XI by the insurer coversthe liability of a person for death or bodily injury of his employee arising in the use of a motor vehicle in a public place, to compensation required to be paid under the wc Act, action for recovery of compensation for death or bodily injury of such employee could be taken by instituting a proceeding before the Workmen's compensation Commissioner under the WC Act because of the option made available to the claimants under Section 167 of the MV Act. If a proceeding is taken for recovery of compensation impleading the Insurer for such proceeding as required under sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the MV Act by instituting an action (claim) therefor before the Commissioner under the WC Act, could the Insurer defend such action on grounds other than those available to him under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act. We find it difficult to think that the Insurer can defend such action taken under the WC Act on grounds other than those made available to him (it) under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the M V Act because having regard to the 'policy of Insurance' required to be compulsorily taken by the Insured and issued by the Insurer under the Statute to cover certain risks, Statute itself limits the grounds on which action of compensation covered by the Policy could be defended by the Insurer. Scope of defence of the Insurer in an action brought by an employee or his legal representatives (dependants) for fixing the liability of the employer under the wc Act cannot, therefore, be other than what is permitted under sub-section (2) of section 149 of the MV Act when he (it) is impleaded as required under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act to make him liable to satisfy the Judgment or award to be made by the Commissioner. An argument advanced on behalf of the insurer that a reference to 'claims Tribunal' in the explanation found in Section 149 of the Act should make us hold that limiting of grounds of defence of the Insurer under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act should apply only when the action taken is before a Claims Tribunal, does not appeal to us since the Court referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 149 is wide enough to take within its ambit 'commissioner' under the WC Act inasmuch as in the provision in the MV Act of 1939 corresponding to Section 149 of the MV Act of 1988, there was no mention of 'claims Tribunal' at all and yet defences to be taken before the Claims Tribunal by the Insurer under the MV Act of 1939 were those limited by that provision. Hence, when the Insurer in a proceeding under the WC Act cannot defend an action for fixation of the liability of an employer for payment of compensation to his employee for his death or bodily injury on grounds other than those permitted by Statute under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act, it must follow as a necessary corollary that no appeal by an Insurer under Section 30 (1) of the WC Act against an award made by the Commissioner could lie on grounds other than those specified under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act, subject to further condition that such grounds involve substantial questions of law required to be considered in appeal. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, our answer to the question under consideration is that an appeal filed by the Insurer under Section 30 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation act, 1923, against an award made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, by which it is made liable to pay compensation for death or bodily injury of a person on the basis of Certificate of Insurance issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which is not founded on a ground by which an Insurer was entitled to defend under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act an action for compensation, is unmaintainable. ( 11 ) AS the present appeal of the Insurer is not filed on any ground of defencesavailable to it under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the MV Act, muchless on substantial question of law covering such ground, it is liable to be dismissed as unmaintainable. ( 12 ) IN the result, we dismiss the appeal as unmaintainable. --- *** --- .