JUDGMENT : M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J. 1. The appellant is the Opposite Party No.2/Insurance Company before the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner. The Respondents Nos.1 to 4 are the Applicants and the Respondent No.5 is the Opposite Party No.1 before the Employees’ Compensation Commissioner. 2. The Applicants filed the Application claiming compensation as the dependents of one Raghunathan, who died on 26/12/2015, consequent to the accident that happened on 24/12/2015, on the allegation that he was employed as a mason under the Opposite Party No.1 and the death was in the course of employment under the Opposite Party No.1. 3. The Commissioner found that there is an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the Opposite Party No.1; that the Motorcycle involved in the accident was insured with the Opposite Party No.2 and that the Opposite Party No.2 is liable to pay the compensation. The Commissioner fixed compensation at Rs.8,39,680/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death till the date of deposit and directed the Opposite Party No.2 to deposit the compensation and interest, with funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/-. 4. This appeal was admitted on 09/03/2022 on the substantial questions of law raised in the Appeal, which are extracted hereunder. 1. “Whether the Commissioner is justified in finding employer-employee relationship between the 5 th respondent herein and the deceased without any evidence and also considering the fact that the deceased was employed only as a mason? 2. Whether the Commissioner is justified in making the appellant liable for more than Rs.1,00,000/- as Exhibit B1 policy clearly shows that the maximum liability of the appellant is only Rs.1,00,000/-?” 5. I heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri. Mathews Jacob, instructed by P. Jacob Mathew and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4, Sri. A.R. Nimod. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the limitations of liability in Ext.B1 Policy by which the maximum liability of the appellant for the accident of the driver of the vehicle is limited to Rs.1,00,000/-. Senior Counsel contended that in view of the specific clause in Ext.B1 Contract of Insurance binding on the parties, limiting the liability of the Opposite Party No.2 to Rs.1,00,000/-, the balance compensation is liable to be paid by the Opposite Party No.1. 7. Senior Counsel contended that in view of the specific clause in Ext.B1 Contract of Insurance binding on the parties, limiting the liability of the Opposite Party No.2 to Rs.1,00,000/-, the balance compensation is liable to be paid by the Opposite Party No.1. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4 contended that the clause limiting the liability of the Insurance Company for the accident of the driver to Rs.1,00,000/- is unsustainable in view of the statutory liability cast upon the Insurance Company as per Section 147 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, to cover the entire liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. The learned counsel cited the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandra v. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. [ AIR 2013 SC 2561 ] , Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi and Others [ AIR 1997 SC 3854 ] and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prembai Patel and Others [ AIR 2005 SC 2337 ] and contended that it is well settled in those decisions that under an Act Policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the entire compensation payable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. 9. The Commissioner has found an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the Opposite Party No.1. The liability as per Ext.B1 Insurance Policy is admitted by the Opposite Party No.2. The contention raised by the Opposite Party No.2 is that its liability is limited to Rs.1,00,000/- in view of the conditions in Ext.B1 Policy. 10.The aforesaid decisions cited by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 do not deal with the clause in the Insurance Policy fixing a monetary limit for its liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and hence are not discussed in this judgment. The statutory provisions in the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT itself are clear on this point. Ext.B1 is a Comprehensive Insurance Policy which covers own damage and compulsory third party risks. Section 147 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, deals with the requirements of compulsory policy and the limit of liability. Since the accident occurred before the 2019 Amendment Act, which came into force with effect from 01.04.2022, it is useful to extract Section 147 (1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT as it stood before the amendment: “ 147. Requirements of Policies and limits of liability. Since the accident occurred before the 2019 Amendment Act, which came into force with effect from 01.04.2022, it is useful to extract Section 147 (1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT as it stood before the amendment: “ 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. 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.” 11.The Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 147 deals with the exclusion from the requirements of policy. There is a further exemption in the Proviso, which acts as an exemption from the exclusion. The exemption to the exclusion is the liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any employee engaged as driver or conductor or ticket examiner of the vehicle, or if it is a goods vehicle, the employee carried in the vehicle. In other words, it is mandatory to include such liability arising under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, in the Policy required under Section 147 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. When the entire liability arising out of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, is to be included in the Policy as required by the statutory provision, the Insurance Company cannot enter into a contract to the contrary and limit its liability to a particular sum. 12. It is quite apposite to refer to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, which stood before the 2019 Amendment Act: “ 149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.- (4) Where a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 to the person by whom a policy has been effected, so much of the policy as purports to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any conditions other than those in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect.” 13. Sub-Section (4) of Section 149 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, makes it clear that any condition in violation of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 will be of no effect. 14. In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, I am of the view that the clause contained in Ext.B1 Policy limiting the liability with respect to the driver of the vehicle to Rs.1,00,000/- is of no effect. The substantial questions of law are answered in the affirmative and against the appellant. 15. In view of the answers to the substantial questions of law, this appeal is dismissed without costs.