1. The Appellant before us is the United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. represented by its Branch Manager. A motor lorry bearing Registration No. KLA 5596 belonging to the second Respondent in this appeal had been insured with the Appellant-company. That vehicle met with an accident on 11-8-1975, as a result of which one Joy, who was employed as a cleaner in the lorry, sustained fatal injuries. The first Respondent before us, who is the mother of the deceased employee, filed W.C.C. 7 of 1976 before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Trivandrum, claiming compensation under the Workmens Compensation Act in respect of the death of her son. The Appellant-company was impleaded as the second Respondent in that application. The Commissioner for Workmens Compensation found that deceased Joy had died as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the first Respondent and that the first Respondent was therefore liable to pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation to the mother for the death of her son. It was further held by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation that since the vehicle concerned was insured with the Appellant-company, the company was under a liability to pay the compensation for the death of the deceased Joy on behalf of the first Respondent. Accordingly, a direction was issued by the Commissioner that the Appellant-company should deposit in his court on behalf of the first Respondent a sum of Rs. 7,000/- within 30 days from the date of the order failing which the Appellant was to pay simple interest at 6% per annum. It is against the said order passed by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation that the Appellant-company has come up to this Court with the appeal.

2. The only point urged on behalf of the Appellant-company is that under Section 14 of the Workmens Compensation Act it is only in the event of the employer becoming insolvent or making a composition or scheme of arrangeraent with his creditors or, if the employer is a company, in the event of the company having commence. to be wound up, that the rights of the employer against the insurers as respects the liability under the Act will stand transferred to, and become vested in, the workmen. On this basis it is urged that since the employer in the present case had not become insolvent nor made a composition or scheme of arrangement with his creditors, the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in directing the Appellant-company to pay compensation to the dependent of the deceased workman This contention has to be upheld in view of the pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court in the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Parameswari Amma L.R. 1976 (1) Ker 237 wherein it has been clearly laid down that under the scheme of the Workmens Compensation Act, the only circumstances under which the liability of the employer extends to the insurer also are those specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 14 and that except in cases where the conditions laid down in the Sub-section are duly satisfied, the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation has no jurisdiction to issue any direction to the insurer to deposit into his court the amount of compensation payable by the employer to the dependent of the deceased employee. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view.

3. It follows from the above discussion that the Appellant is well founded in its contention that the direction issued against it by the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation for depositing the amount of Rs. 7,000/- was not legal or proper. However, the Appellant-company, while being desirous of getting the legal position declared by this Court, has submitted through its counsel that despite the fact that it is not legally liable to deposit the amount, the Appellant has already deposited the said amount of Rs. 7,000/- before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and that the company is agreeable that the said amount may be disbursed to the mother of the deceased workman. In the light of the above submission very properly made by Appellants counsel, we do not set aside the impugned order in spite of our having found that the legal position taken up by the Appellant is correct and tenable. The appeal is disposed of as above. The parties will bear their respective costs.