JUDGMENT : Shircy V., J. 1. Assailing the legality and validity of the Award dated 21.4.2008 rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Kannur in W.C.C. No. 22/2004, the instant appeal has been preferred by the National Insurance Company Ltd/ the opposite party II (herein after referred as 'the Company'). 2. One Sajith met with an accident on 8.4.2003 while riding the motor cycle owned by his employer, the 4th respondent (the opposite party I before the W.C.C) during the course of his employment. He sustained severe injuries in the accident which resulted in his death. Respondents 1 to 3 herein preferred a petition for compensation as his legal heirs against the 4th respondent/owner/employer and this appellant the company. The 4th respondent has admitted the factum of accident and the factum of employment of the deceased. An amount of Rs.4,39,900/- was awarded as compensation with interest from the date of accident till the date of deposit against the company on the finding that the vehicle involved was having valid insurance coverage. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. It is contended by the company that the deceased was employed as a Manager with the 4th respondent and so he would not come within the purview of workmen as defined under the 'Workmen's Compensation in Kerala' 3. The further contention is that the deceased was in ownership and possession of the vehicle and there was no notice regarding the claim and so in short the company has no liability to pay compensation to the respondents. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. 5. The sequence of events would show that Sajith the deceased met with an accident on 8.4.2003 while riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL 39 7017 owned by the 4th respondent through a public road during the course of his employment. He was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital from there he was referred to Pariyaram Medical College for expert treatment. But he succumbed to the injuries on 12.4.2003. His father, mother and sister had filed the claim petition alleging that he was drawing monthly wages of Rs.4500/- and was a Bachelor and they were depending on him at the time of his death. But he succumbed to the injuries on 12.4.2003. His father, mother and sister had filed the claim petition alleging that he was drawing monthly wages of Rs.4500/- and was a Bachelor and they were depending on him at the time of his death. The Commissioner by the impugned judgment rejecting the contentions of the company awarded in total an amount of Rs.4,39,000/- with 12% interest and directed to pay the amount as the vehicle was having valid insurance coverage. 6. Before the Commissioner the 4th respondent has admitted that the deceased was employed with him and he met with the accident in the course of his employment. 7. Here as mentioned earlier, the employer-employee relationship of the deceased was not disputed by the respondent No.4/employer though the company had contended that the deceased was a Manager not recruited or employed as a driver to be covered under the statutory policy. Therefore the employer-employee relationship of the deceased and 4th respondent is practically admitted but whether his legal heirs are entitled to compensation is the question mooted for adjudication. 8. Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act which deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability is relevant for the purpose of this case and hence it is apposite to reiterate the relevant portion of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act: 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- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Provided that a policy shall not be requiredi .to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insuredby 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 a. If it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or b. If it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or ii. To cover any contractual liability. 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. 9. The learned counsel for the Company has argued that only if it is proved that the deceased was employed as a driver and engaged with the works of his employer and the accident happened in the course of his employment, the right to indemnify can be enforced against the insurance company who is now saddled with the responsibility to pay compensation by the Commissioner. Considering the evidence available and the admission of the 4th respondent the death of the deceased was in the course of his employment. 10. A Full Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Surendran 2015 (1) KLT 45 (F.B.) while answering a reference made in M.F.A.No.191/2005 by a Division Bench with a similar appeal as M.F.A.No.7/2009 held that if an employee, in discharge of his duties, is engaged in driving a vehicle as permitted by his employer, irrespective of whether he is employed as a driver or not, the employee would be entitled to the coverage of the proviso to Section 147 provided the accident has occurred out of and in the course of his employment. 11. While interpreting clause (a) to the proviso to Section 147 of M.V. Act in para No.9 it is observed as follows: '' “It is the settled position of law that when the language of a statute is unambiguous, the Courts are bound to literally interpret the statute and give full effect to the provisions. 11. While interpreting clause (a) to the proviso to Section 147 of M.V. Act in para No.9 it is observed as follows: '' “It is the settled position of law that when the language of a statute is unambiguous, the Courts are bound to literally interpret the statute and give full effect to the provisions. In so far as Clause (a) to the proviso to S.147 is concerned, Section only uses the expression engaged in driving the vehicle' without specifying either the class of the vehicle which is covered by this provision or the nature of the employment of the person engaged in driving the vehicle, unlike clauses (b) and (c) to the proviso, which specifies the nature of the employment to claim coverage of the said provision. This, therefore, means that to claim coverage of the said provision. This, therefore, means that to claim coverage of Clause (a) to the proviso to S.147 of the Act, the employee need only be engaged in driving the vehicle, irrespective of whether he was employed as driver or not. Needless to say that such coverage would be available only if the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment and only if the other requirements of the Workmen's Compensation Act are also satisfied.” 12. Here in this matter the employer had admitted that the deceased was employed with him and while he was in the course of his employment met with the accident and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries though undergone treatment in a Medical college. Therefore, in our considered view the findings of the Commissioner in the claim preferred by the dependents of the deceased who succumbed to the injuries at the age of 24 are entitled to get compensation and the liability to pay compensation on the death occurred in the course of employment of the deceased is on the Insurance Company are absolutely correct and the contention raised by the Insurance Company that the Company is not liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 3 is without any merits and therefore, the appeal is only to be dismissed and we do so. Dismissed.