DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. N. RANGAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA AND THE SECRETARY, ANANTHA SEVASHRAMA TRUST, REPRESENTED BY S.K. BASAVARAJAN, ADMINISTRATOR AND SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT issued certificate of 'miscellaneous and special type of vehicles package policy' to tractor and trailer bearing registration No. KA -26/T -4262 and T -105 for the period from 23.8.05 to 22.8.06. The said vehicles were owned by the 2nd Respondent. Respondent No. 1 (Workmen) in each of these appeals were employed as loaders and unloaders in the said vehicles by the 2nd Respondent. On 19.2.06, injury was caused to the workmen by an accident arising out of and in the course of their employment on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver. Claim petitions were filed against the employer and the Insurance Company under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, contending that, the injuries sustained due to the accident has resulted in permanent disability and loss of earning capacity. The employer despite service of notice of the claim petitions, did not appear before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (for short, CWC) and was placed exparte. The Appellant which was the 2nd Respondent in the claim petitions filed separate statements and opposed the claim petitions. Issues, were framed. During enquiry, the claimants deposed and examined a qualified medical practitioner. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Respondent in the claim petitions. The CWC by a common order, dated 6.8.07, allowed the claim petitions and directed the Appellant to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days and in case of default, to pay interest at 12% p.a. The said order and consequential Awards have been questioned in these appeals.

(2.) SRI A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that, the workmen were loaders and unloaders in the tractor and trailer which was transporting cement and steel without a permit being. taken to use the vehicle as a transport vehicle. Learned Counsel submitted that, the statement of complaint / FIR and the charge -sheet would indicate that the tractor and trailer was being used for transporting materials for construction of building of a mutt and there being breach of terms and conditions, of the policy, which was an agricultural policy, the fastening of the liability on the Appellant to deposit the determined compensation amount is illegal. Learned Counsel submitted that, the material evidence on record has been omitted from consideration by the CWC and the finding against the Appellant is perverse.

(3.) KEEPING in view the rival contentions and the record of the case, which I have perused, the substantial questions of law for determination are: (a) Whether the CWC has omitted from consideration material evidence placed on record of the case? (b) Whether the CWC is justified in fastening the liability on the Appellant to deposit the assessed compensation amount?