JUDGMENT : VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the impugned Order dated 26.11.2007 in W.C. No. 170 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa (hereinafter be referred to as “Commissioner”). 2. The appellant was the O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company, the respondent No. 1 was the applicant and the respondent No. 2 was the O.P. No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle before the learned Commissioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Commissioner. Case of Applicant in nutshell: 3. Applicant was working as a tractor coolie in Tractor and Trailer bearing Nos. AP04U5336 & 5337 under the employment of O.P. No. 1. The vehicle was insured with O.P. No. 2, vide Policy No. 050901/31/03/00998 valid from 11.10.2003 to 10.10.2004. While so, on 13.12.2003 as instructed by the owner, he being a coolie proceeded in tractor from Gollalabodu Gutta with a load of stones and when they reached near Lingala Dine Palli Village on Porumamilla-Mydukur main road, driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without observing the driving rules and lost control over the vehicle, resulting which, the tractor turned. 4. Applicant sustained grievous injuries and the driver died on the spot. He contends that this was while discharging duties during the course of employment. Crime No. 40 of 2003 was registered for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC on the file of B.Mattam Police Station. Applicant sustained partial permanent disability and as is unable to attend the coolie work, he lost total earning capacity. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Government Head Quarters Hospital, Kadapa. He was aged about 25 years and earning Rs.3000/- per month as coolie. Therefore, he sought for the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. Contention of Opposite Parties 5. The O.P. No. 1/owner of the vehicle filed Counter admitting that the applicant is a coolie and he sustained injuries during the course of employment and he was getting Rs.100/- per day. He further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with O.P. No. 2, which was in force covering the risk of the driver as well as five coolies. The driver was having valid driving license and he never violated any conditions of the policy. He further stated that the offending vehicle was insured with O.P. No. 2, which was in force covering the risk of the driver as well as five coolies. The driver was having valid driving license and he never violated any conditions of the policy. As such, the O.P. No. 2 is liable to pay the compensation. 6. O.P. No. 2 filed Counter denying the contents of the petition stating that the applicant has not issued any notice under Section 10 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and therefore, he cannot seek any compensation against the O.P. No. 2. The applicant has to prove the manner in which the accident occurred, age, income and injuries sustained. The applicant is not entitled for the interest claim and the claim is excessive and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. Issues framed & Enquiry: 7. Learned Commissioner on perusal of pleadings of both parties and on hearing both the counsel, framed the following issues for consideration: (i) Whether the applicant is a workmen as per the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and he met with accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting into disability and loss of earning capacity? (ii) What was the age of the injured applicant at the time of accident? (iii) What was the wages paid to the injured applicant at the time of accident? (iv) What is the loss of earning capacity suffered and permanent disability percentage faced by the injured applicant? (v) What is the quantum of compensation payable to the applicant? (vi) Who are liable to pay the compensation? 8. During course of enquiry, applicant was examined as AW-1. Ex.A.1 to A.4 were the documents marked. On behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2, no evidence is adduced. Applicant as AW-1 deposed in replica to the averments made in the petition in his chief examination affidavit reiterating that at the date of the accident he was proceeding in the tractor as instructed by the owner with a load of stones. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred, wherein he sustained partial permanent disability. O.P. No. 1 did not cross examine AW-1. Nothing has been elicited by cross examining AW-1 by the O.P. No. 2. 9. In support of his claim, the applicant got examined AW-2, the Doctor who issued Ex.A.3-Disability Certificate. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the accident occurred, wherein he sustained partial permanent disability. O.P. No. 1 did not cross examine AW-1. Nothing has been elicited by cross examining AW-1 by the O.P. No. 2. 9. In support of his claim, the applicant got examined AW-2, the Doctor who issued Ex.A.3-Disability Certificate. He was cross examined at length by O.P. No. 2, but could not get anything in their favour. The evidence of AW-1 coupled with Ex.A.1 would show that the matter is forthwith reported to the police and in the accident, the applicant sustained injuries. Ex.A.1 would show that after due investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle. 10. After hearing both the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.97,948/- to the applicant, directing the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Order. Grounds of Appeal: 11. Aggrieved by the impugned Order, Insurance Company/O.P. No. 2 preferred the present appeal on the grounds that the O.P. No. 1 is only liable to pay the compensation since he worked as a coolie for loading and unloading the stones. AW-1 admitted that after the accident, he was admitted in Government Hospital and the treatment is free. Excess compensation was granted to the applicant by the learned Commissioner, which is highly irregular. AW-2/Doctor deposed that the applicant sustained only simple injuries and there is no permanent disability. 12. Substantial Questions of law: (i) Whether the authority is right in not deciding the claim as per mandatory provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, since it is not maintainable as no notice was issued by the applicant to O.P. No. 2? (ii) Whether the authority is right in adding O.P. No. 2 as a party without O.P. No. 1 being declared as insolvent? (iii) Whether the authority is right in holding the appellant is liable to pay the award amount? 13. Heard both the counsel. Perused the material on record. Point No. 1: 14. Learned counsel for Appellant would submit that the applicant sustained injuries while travelling in a tractor as a coolie and there is no employee and employer relation between them. The seating capacity of the tractor is one. 13. Heard both the counsel. Perused the material on record. Point No. 1: 14. Learned counsel for Appellant would submit that the applicant sustained injuries while travelling in a tractor as a coolie and there is no employee and employer relation between them. The seating capacity of the tractor is one. No notice has been issued to O.P. No. 2 vide Section 10 (1) of the Act. Therefore, the claim is not maintainable before the learned Commissioner. 15. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Baijayanta Dewri and others, MFA No. 59/2013, dated 21.06.2022 [Gauhati High Court] where a similar question arose as to whether no notice under Section 10 would vitiate the claim proceedings, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court held thus: “14. A perusal of Section 10 of the Act of 1923 stipulates about Notice and Claim. While sub-section (1) of Section 10 stipulates that no claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner provided and as soon as practicable after the happening of accident and unless the claim is preferred before the Commissioner within 2 (two) years from the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within 2 (two) years from the date of death. 15. At this stage, it may be relevant to take notice of the fourth proviso to Section 10 (1) and more particularly, clause (b) of the fourth proviso which stipulates that want of or any defect or irregularity in the notice shall not bar to the entertainment of a claim if the employer had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it is occurred.” 16. In similar lines, in Ram Karan and Anr. v. Vijayanand, (1995) (II) LLJ 171 MP the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh having relied on decisions in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Manto Bai, 1990 (I) LLJ 25 , Om Prakash v. Ram Gali, 1989 ACJ 803, Firoz Naik v. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, 1991 (2) TAC 615 and Shanti and Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. and Ors. Misc. Appeal No. 265 of 1991 decided on March 31, 1994 held that the Insurance Company cannot exonerate from its liability simply on the ground that notice was not issued to the insurance company and as such notice to the owner of the offending vehicle is good enough. 17. v. New India Assurance Co. and Ors. Misc. Appeal No. 265 of 1991 decided on March 31, 1994 held that the Insurance Company cannot exonerate from its liability simply on the ground that notice was not issued to the insurance company and as such notice to the owner of the offending vehicle is good enough. 17. In the facts of the present case, even for a moment assuming that no notice has been issued under Section 10 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to O.P. No. 2 by the applicant and the O.P. No. 2 be shown as a party to the claim petition, these things do not cut the route of the case. In light of the precedents cited supra, these defects at best be considered as failure to follow the procedure under law and that cannot be a ground to discard the claim. Accordingly, the Point No. 1 is answered. Point No. 2: 18. Nothing has been argued for the appellant to decide this point. It appears, the claim of the appellant is that he cannot be shown as party to the claim petition unless O.P. No. 1 is declared as insolvent. As the accident occurred during the course of employment, it is for the O.P. No. 1 to pay the compensation to the employee and can claim the reimbursement of the compensation from the insurance company. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the insurance policy has been issued in the name of the driver and coolies. So, O.P. No. 2 can be added as party to the claim petition and it is not the case of misjoinder of cause of action. 19. It is relevant to extract Section 14 of the Act: “Section 14. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the insurance policy has been issued in the name of the driver and coolies. So, O.P. No. 2 can be added as party to the claim petition and it is not the case of misjoinder of cause of action. 19. It is relevant to extract Section 14 of the Act: “Section 14. Insolvency of employer: (1) Where any employer has entered into a contract with any insurers in respect of any liability under this Act to any workman, then in the event of the employer becoming insolvent or making a composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors or, if the employer is a company, in the event of the company having commenced to be wound up, the rights of the employer against the insurers as respects that liability shall, notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force relating to insolvency or the winding up of companies, be transferred to and vest in the workman, and upon any such transfer the insurers shall have the same rights and remedies and be subject to the same liabilities as if they were the employer, so, however, that the insurers shall not be under any greater liability to the workman than they would have been under to the employer. (2) If the liability of the insurers to the workman is less than the liability of the employer to the workman, the workman may prove for the balance in the insolvency proceedings or liquidation. (3) Where in any case such as is referred to in sub- section (1) the contract of the employer with the insurers is void or voidable by reason of non-compliance on the part of the employer with any terms or conditions of the contract (other than a stipulation for the payment of premia), the provisions of that sub- section shall apply as if the contract were not void or voidable, and the insurers shall be entitled to prove in the insolvency proceedings or liquidation for the amount paid to the workman: Provided that the provisions of this sub- section shall not apply in any case in which the workman fails to give notice to the insurers of the happening of the accident and of any resulting disablement as soon as practicable after he becomes aware of the institution of the insolvency or liquidation proceedings. (4) There shall be deemed to be included among the debts which under section 49 of the Presidency- towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3 of 1909 ), or under section 61 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (5 of 1920 ), or under section 230 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (7 of 1913), are in the distribution of the property of an insolvent or in the distribution of the assets of a company being wound up to be paid in priority to all other debts, the amount due in respect of any compensation the liability where for accrued before the date of the order of adjudication of the insolvent or the date of the commencement of the winding up, as the case may be, and those Acts shall have effect accordingly. (5) Where the compensation is a half- monthly payment, the amount due in respect thereof shall, for the purposes of this section, be taken to be the amount of the lump sum for which the half- monthly payment could, if redeemable, be redeemed if application were made for that purpose under section 7, and a certificate of the Commissioner as to the amount of such sum shall be conclusive proof thereof. (6) The provisions of sub-section (4) shall apply in the case of any amount for which an insurer is entitled to prove under subsection (3), but otherwise those provisions shall not apply where the insolvent or the company being wound up has entered into such a contract with insurers as is referred to in sub-section (1). (7) This section shall not apply where a company is wound up voluntarily merely for the purposes of reconstruction or of amalgamation with another company.” 20. It is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M.R. Omar Ali and Another, MFA No. 25 of 2019, dated 24.01.2023 which held thus: “18. In the case of R.V. Moondra and Company vs. Bhanwari, AIR 1970 Rajasthan 111, it was held that the compensation under the Workmen’s Act is payable by an employer and the insurance company does not come within the ambit of the definition, it was therefore held that the commissioner appointed under the Act will have no jurisdiction to award compensation to a workmen against an insurer unless the case falls u/s 14 of the Act. 22. 22. In another case New India Assurance Company Ltd vs. Parmeshwari, (1976) 32 FACLR 371 (Kerala), it was stated by the court that section 14 of the Workmen’s Act is the sole provision under which the liability of the employer extended to the insurer also. 27. In another case Premier Insurance Company vs. C. Thomas, 1984 (1) Lab LJ 149, it was pointed out in the said decision that when the Workmen’s Act had been passed scheme of compulsory insurance for motor vehicles dealt with by chapter VIII of the MV Act was not in existence which has, however, brought out far reaching changes. It was then stated that provisions of section 12(2), 13 and 19 of the WC Act indicted that persons other than the employer and the employee could also be brought before the Commissioner and the claim against them could also be considered by the Commissioner. By preferring to the proviso to section 95(1) of the MV Act it was held that the legislature definitely had in mind the WC Act and made the provisions of that act a basis to cover the claim of the workmen under the MV Act also. Then by referring to sections 110 AA of the MV Act it was stated that this provision made abundantly clear that the claim against the insurer could be agitated by a workmen not only before a claims tribunal but also under the WC Act. 28. After going through the different provisions of the WC Act and the provisions of old and present MV Act, it reveals that the provisions of the WC Act cannot be viewed in isolation when the MV Act has specifically stated that a policy of insurance taken out under the provisions of chapter VIII cannot exclude the liability arising under the Workmen’s Act. The awareness of the liability under the WC Act even while dealing with the liability under the MV Act has been clearly shown in the proviso to section 95(1) of the MV Act. 29. Realization of the compensation from the employer alone even where the insurer is to bare the loss as per the terms of the policy would put the victims in a difficult situation in as much as it is well known that realization of compensation is easier when it is fastened on the insurer than on the insured. 29. Realization of the compensation from the employer alone even where the insurer is to bare the loss as per the terms of the policy would put the victims in a difficult situation in as much as it is well known that realization of compensation is easier when it is fastened on the insurer than on the insured. The financial position of the latter may in many cases thwart that realization of the dues. The policy taken out for the benefit of the workmen has to allow him to reap the full advantage of the same. 30. Section 12 (2) and (13) of the WC Act do indicate that persons other than employers can be made liable to pay compensation under the provisions of the WC Act. In this context a narrow meaning to the expression “any person” in section 19 of the act would militate against the wide sweep of the expression, especially when it is viewed in the background of the provisions finding place in the MV Act. 31. The thinking that the person visualized by section 19 of the WC Act has to be one who has to pay compensation as defined in this Act, does not stand against the broad view indicated above because the word compensation has been defined to mean compensation as provided for by this Act. By asking the insurer to pay the compensation as provided by the WC act nothing is being done against section 19 of this Act. 34. There can be no doubt that the provisions finding place in the MV Act regarding the liability of insurer and his obligation to indemnify the insured have to be regarded in the nature of special provisions in so far as compensation for motor accident is concerned, whereas the provision in the WC Act are of general nature covering compensation for all types of accidents. So the special provisions finding place in the MV Act have to prevail over those incorporated in the WC Act in case of conflict in so far as compensation to a victim of motor accident and liability of an insured and insurer therefore are concerned.” 21. So the special provisions finding place in the MV Act have to prevail over those incorporated in the WC Act in case of conflict in so far as compensation to a victim of motor accident and liability of an insured and insurer therefore are concerned.” 21. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that mere adding of O.P. No. 2 in the absence of insolvency of O.P. No. 1 is not fatal to the case of the claimant as the contract of insurance between O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 is a contract of indemnity. Accordingly, Point answered. Point No. 3: 22. It is pertinent to mention that the argument of learned counsel for the Appellant that no additional premium has been paid to cover the risk of a coolie is not supported by either pleadings or evidence before the learned Commissioner. O.P. No. 1 in the Counter itself clearly mentioned that he took the insurance policy for the vehicle covering the risk of the driver and five coolies which was issued by the O.P. No. 2. 23. There is no whisper in the cross examination of AW-1 by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 on that point. The claimant being a coolie in the tractor of O.P. No. 1 met with an accident in the course of employment and he sustained injuries. The evidence of AW-1 was corroborated by the medical evidence of AW-2. Taking into consideration the minimum wages as per G.O.Ms. No. 81, dated 29.03.2001, learned Commissioner calculated the compensation. Any amount of argument without any pleadings supported by evidence is of no avail. 24. In the present case, though the initial burden is on O.P. No. 1 to say that the vehicle is insured with O.P. No. 2, which covers the risk of the applicant, burden is also equally on O.P. 2 to file a copy of the insurance policy to establish that no premium has been paid covering the risk of a coolie. For the reasons best known, the O.P. No. 2 did not choose to adduce any scrap of paper to prove that the risk of the applicant is not covered under the policy. For the reasons best known, the O.P. No. 2 did not choose to adduce any scrap of paper to prove that the risk of the applicant is not covered under the policy. In the absence of which, the evidence of AW-1 coupled with the counter averments of O.P. No. 1 would clearly go to show that the policy issued by O.P. No. 2 clearly cover the risk of the coolie. Accordingly, Point Answered. Viewed from any angle, the Order impugned does not brook interference in appeal. Consequently, the appeal deserves dismissal. 25. In result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Each party shall bear their own costs. 26. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.