JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The Insurer has filed this appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 2. Claimant-respondent No. 1 filed application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Cuttack (in short, the "Commissioner") on the ground that he had sustained injuries being hit by a motor-cycle on February 7, 1993. It is claimed that he was the Helper in Truck No. OSC 4795 belonging to present respondent No. 3 which was being repaired in a garage and was required to get money from the owner and while he was coming on the road, the motor-cyclist came from behind and dashed against him causing injuries. 3. The owner in written statement while admitting the employment and the accident claimed that compensation should be paid by the Insurance Company as the truck had been insured. The Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. 4. The Commissioner found that the claimant was a workman under the owner in respect of the truck in question and while he was proceeding on the road in connection with the work of the owner, the accident was caused by the motorcycle. In short, it was held that the claimant had sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in course of his employment. Keeping in view the loss of earning capacity, the Commissioner directed that sum of Rs. 38,124/- should be paid as compensation by the Insurer of the truck, as the truck had been validly insured. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that no documentary evidence including police papers had been produced to indicate that any accident had occurred and the injuries had been sustained in such accident. The findings of the Commissioner on this aspect are based on discussion of relevant evidence on record. Even though the FIR has not been produced, nor there is any other documentary evidence, the Commissioner has accepted the oral evidence. It cannot be said that the finding of the Commissioner is perverse so as to warrant interference in this appeal. 6. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant sought to assail the finding that the injuries had been sustained in an accident arising out of and in course of employment, such contention cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that the finding of the Commissioner is perverse so as to warrant interference in this appeal. 6. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant sought to assail the finding that the injuries had been sustained in an accident arising out of and in course of employment, such contention cannot be accepted. There is no dispute that the claimant was proceeding to the owner to get money for the purpose of repair of the truck. Thus, it can be said that the accident had occurred in course of employment. Similarly, it is evident that the workman exposed himself to additional risk while he was discharging his duty and thus it can be said that there was causal nexus between the employment and the accident and thus the injuries have been sustained in an accident arising out of employment. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant also sought to challenge the quantum of compensation assessed by the Commissioner. However, the finding on this aspect is also based on discussion of the relevant materials on record and in the absence of any perversity in the finding, there is no scope for interference. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised an interesting question of law relating to liability of the Insurance Company. It has been submitted that the claimant was a Helper in respect of the truck which was kept in garage for the purpose of repair and the claimant was injured in an accident caused by another vehicle while he was going on the road. In the above background, it has been submitted that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable, as it cannot be said that any injury had been caused by or arose out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. It is, therefore, submitted that such a liability even in respect of workman is not required to be covered u/s 147. 9. In order to appreciate such contention, the relevant provisions contained in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act need be extracted. The relevant provisions (after ignoring the provisions which are not necessary) are as follows: "147. It is, therefore, submitted that such a liability even in respect of workman is not required to be covered u/s 147. 9. In order to appreciate such contention, the relevant provisions contained in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act need be extracted. The relevant provisions (after ignoring the provisions which are not necessary) are as follows: "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) ** ** (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) **** 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. Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place." It has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that even though under the proviso, the insurer is required to cover liability in respect of death of or bodily injury to a workman arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there is no such obligation to cover the liability unless such death or bodily injury has been caused by the vehicle in a public place or has arisen out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. He has submitted that in the present case, the injuries to the employee were not caused by the truck which had been insured, nor it can be said that such injuries arose out of the use of the truck in a public place. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the owner submitted that the expression "arising out of the use of the vehicle" must receive a wider interpretation as had been done by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More, It has been submitted that even though the truck was in the garage, the Helper had to go to get money from the owner for the purpose of repair of the truck and thus it can be said that there was nexus between the accident and the use of the vehicle. He has submitted that merely because the vehicle was kept in standstill position in the garage, it cannot be said that the vehicle was not in use at the time when the incident occurred. 11. In the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court, there was a collision between a petrol tanker and a truck on the road and the tanker had capsized. 11. In the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court, there was a collision between a petrol tanker and a truck on the road and the tanker had capsized. A few hours thereafter due to leakage of petrol from the tanker, there was explosion which caused injuries to several persons. Applications for compensation on account of no fault liability as envisaged u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, had been filed and compensation had been granted. The owner of the petrol tanker had filed SLP challenging such decision. The Supreme Court observed: "33. In the context of motor accidents the expressions caused by and arising out of are often used in statutes. Although both these expressions imply a causal relationship between the accident resulting in injury and the use of the motor vehicle but they differ in the degree of proximity of such relationship. This distinction has been lucidly brought out in the decision of the High Court of Australia in Government Insurance Office of N. S. W. v. R.J. Green's case (1965) 11 CLR 437 wherein LORD BARWICK, C.J., has stated: 'Bearing in mind the general purpose of the Act I think the expression arising out of must be taken to require a less proximate relationship of the injury to the relevant use of the vehicle than is required to satisfy the words caused by. It may be that an association of the injury with the use of the vehicle while it cannot be said that that use was causally related to the injury may yet be enough to satisfy the expression 'arise out of' as used in the Act and in the policy.' ** ** *** 35. This would show that as compared to the expression 'caused by', the expression 'arising out of has a wider connotation. The expression caused by was used in Sections 95(1)(b)(i) and (ii) and 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Act. In Section 92-A, Parliament, however, chose to use the expression 'arising out of which indicates that for the purpose of awarding compensation u/s 92-A the causal relationship between the use of the motor vehicle and the accident resulting in death or permanent disablement is not required to be direct and proximate and it can be less immediate. This would imply that accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle but the said connection need not be direct and immediate. This would imply that accident should be connected with the use of the motor vehicle but the said connection need not be direct and immediate. This construction of the expression arising out of the use of a motor vehicle in Section 92-A enlarges the field of protection made available to the victims of an accident and is in consonance with the beneficial object underlying the enactment." Ultimately, it was concluded: "36........In the light of the aforesaid circumstances the learned Judges of the High Court have rightly concluded that the collision between the tanker and the other vehicle which had occurred earlier and the escape of petrol from the tanker which ultimately resulted in the explosion and fire were not unconnected but related events and merely because there was interval of about four to four and half hours between the said collision and the explosion and fire in the tanker, it cannot be necessarily inferred that there was no causal relation between explosion and fire. In the circumstances, it must be held that the explosion and fire resulting in the injuries which led to the death of Deepak Uttam More was due to an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle viz, the petrol tanker No. MKL 7461." 12. There cannot be any doubt that the expression "arising out of the use of the vehicle" is wider than the expression "caused by the vehicle." Even accepting the widest meaning, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the injuries sustained by the claimant in the present case caused by another vehicle on the road arose out of the use of the truck which was in the garage. There must be some causal connection between the two, both proximate in time as well as proximate in the nature of use. The liability which is required to be covered u/s 147(1)(b)(i) is a liability arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. This becomes more clear if the Proviso is also taken into consideration, as the Insurance Company is required to cover the liability in respect of a driver engaged in driving the vehicle, or if it is a goods carriage, the employee being carried in the vehicle. Even assuming that Section 147(1)(b)(i) covers such a case, the proviso has rather restricted its meaning. Even assuming that Section 147(1)(b)(i) covers such a case, the proviso has rather restricted its meaning. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the submission made by the counsel for the owner-respondent that the liability was required to be covered u/s 147 cannot be accepted. The decision of the Supreme Court (supra) is clearly distinguishable, as in that case it had been found that there was causal connection between the ultimate explosion and the earlier accident involving the vehicle. In the present case, there is no such causal connection. The connection, if any, is too remote to uphold the contention that the accident caused by a different vehicle had causal connection with the use of the truck which had been kept in a garage for effecting repairs. 13. Even though the aforesaid conclusion is reached, and the Insurer has apparently won the "legal battle," the factual war is not yet over. In spite of the aforesaid analysis of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant cannot escape from its liability. 14. In the present case, the insurance policy has been marked as Ext. A. A perusal of the document indicates that the Insurer had undertaken wider liability than what was required to be covered u/s 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It appears from Ext. A that the Insurer had received additional premium for covering legal liability to person employed in connection with operation of the motor vehicle as per IMT-17. The relevant portion of IMT-17 as appearing from Ext. A is as follows: "IMT 17. Legal Liability to persons employed in connection with the operation and/or maintaining and/or unloading of Motor Vehicles. A that the Insurer had received additional premium for covering legal liability to person employed in connection with operation of the motor vehicle as per IMT-17. The relevant portion of IMT-17 as appearing from Ext. A is as follows: "IMT 17. Legal Liability to persons employed in connection with the operation and/or maintaining and/or unloading of Motor Vehicles. In consideration of the payment of an additional premium it is hereby understood and agreed that notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the Company shall indemnify the insured against his legal liability as under: The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and subsequent amendments of that Act prior to the date of this Endorsement, the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 or at Common Law in respect of personal injury to any paid driver (or cleaner or conductor or person employed in loading/or unloading but in any case not exceeding seven in number including driver and cleaner) whilst engaged in the service of the insured in such occupation in connection with the - (left blank in the policy) and not exceeding seven in number and will in addition be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred with its written consent. .........." The Helper can also be considered as a Cleaner for the purpose of the aforesaid clause. It is evident that the workman was going to the owner for the purpose of maintenance of the vehicle, that is to say, for effecting repair of the vehicle. Thus, even though u/s 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, liability was not required to be covered, the Insurance Company had undertaken wider liability by accepting additional premium under the Comprehensive Policy, (Ext. A). 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed