THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.824 of 2005
JUDGMENT:
1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against order dated 29.12.2003 in W.C.No.66 of 2003 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'), whereunder, the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein for payment of compensation in respect of death of one Mr. Abdul Raheem (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), in an accident was partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.3,29,770/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed at the instance of insurance company i.e., opposite party No.2 in the proceedings before the Commissioner.
2. The main challenge in the present appeal is that the Commissioner has ignored the evidence let in by the appellant herein, more particularly evidence of investigator and his report. According to the appellant, the said report clearly demonstrates that the deceased was not an employee of the respondent No.5 herein, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, but he has taken the said vehicle on hire basis. As such, he cannot be treated 2 ML,J CMA_824_2005 as workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. This contention was urged on the basis of investigation conducted by the investigator and report submitted by him.
3. None appeared and there is no representation from the respondents.
4. The facts of the case and the evidence on record show that there is no reference of the deceased hiring the vehicle from the registered owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.5 herein. Whereas, respondent No.5 filed his counter admitting that the deceased was his employee. When such is the evidence, the evidence of the investigator has no relevance. Further, the person, who has submitted the investigation report, has not been examined to substantiate the contentions in his report. It is also not clear what was foundational evidence with which he arrived at the conclusion in his report. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence on record does not raise any substantial question of law, as contended by the appellant.
5. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 29.12.2003 in W.C.No.66 of 2003 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant 3 ML,J CMA_824_2005 Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad-II. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
______________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 06.01.2023 GVR