THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1557 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 30.04.1996 in W.C.No.642 of 1995 on the file of the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad.
2. Heard both sides
3. The main challenge in the present Appeal is that the Commissioner while awarding compensation has not taken into consideration the criminal records more particularly the first information report, which demonstrate that the deceased was a labourer travelling in the vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased along with others were travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passengers and the appellant is not liable to pay compensation.
5. The Commissioner has rejected the said claim on the ground that, none was examined to prove Exs. B1 to B4. The Commissioner also considered the admission of the owner of the vehicle that the deceased and other injured labourers were 2 travelling as workmen and they were not gratituous passengers. It is unfortunate that the claimants as well as the insurance company have not chosen to file a final report as to the final result of investigation. The First Information Report (for short, "FIR") is the basis for initiation of criminal proceedings. Ultimately, the investigation result is the criterian to know whether the deceased and the injured were travelling on the vehicle as gratuitous passenger or as workmen of the owner of the vehicle.
6. The insurance company disputed the employment of the deceased, as pleaded by the owner. So, the burden is on the insurance company to disprove the claim of owner by producing admissible evidence. The FIR shows that the deceased along with others met with accident while travelling in the lorry, but it is not explained why they have not filed the charge sheet. The concerned investigating officer ought to have been examined to show that the deceased and the injured were travelling on the vehicle as gratuitous passengers. When such is not the evidence, the claim of the insurance company is unmerited. I do not find any perversity in findings of the Commissioner so as to interfere in this Appeal and the same liable to be dismissed. 3
7. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the Order dated 30.04.1996 in W.C.No.642 of 1995 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad. No costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE M.LAXMAN 09.01.2023 ESP 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN 59 C.M.A.No.1557 of 2008 Dated: 09.01.2023 ESP