THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.951 OF 2007
JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the order passed in W.C.No.118 of 2004 dt.14.05.2007 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1 at Hyderabad.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this Appeal are that the applicant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was employed as a driver by Opposite Party No.1 on his lorry bearing No.AP 9V 2082. While he was driving the said lorry on 28.07.2003 from Uppal to Begumpet at about 4.30 A.M., there was an accident, due to which the lorry was completely damaged and the applicant sustained fractures to vertebral of spinal cord and other injuries on face, left dorsum of hand. Immediately he was shifted to a hospital at Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad and an operation was conducted on 01.08.2003 for the fractures and after discharge from the said hospital, he was completely bedridden.
3. The applicant therefore filed an Application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation seeking a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The applicant had also stated that he was being paid Rs.5,000/- per month as wages besides batta of Rs.100/- per day and that he was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident. The 2 Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.2,83,810/- by adopting wages at Rs.3,595/- and the disability compensation as well as loss of earning capacity at 60%. Against this award, the insurance company is in appeal before this Court mainly on the against finding given by the Commissioner that there is employee and employer relationship between the applicant and the 1st Opposite Party.
4. After hearing both parties, this Court finds that Opposite Party No.1 had remained ex parte before the Commissioner and though Opposite Party No.2 had denied the employer and employee relationship between the applicant and Opposite Party No.1, the Commissioner has taken into consideration the certificate issued by the S.I. of Police, P.S. Mahankali under Ex.A2 to hold that the applicant was the driver of the subject vehicle at the time of accident and since there was no denial by Opposite Party No.1, the Commissioner has held that the employer and employee relationship has been established. Even at this stage, the insurance company has not been able to rebut this finding of the Commissioner with any evidence to the contrary.
5. Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CMA shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 16.11.2021 Svv