The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Khairunnisa 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 146 Tel

           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

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

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