ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER K GOVINDA RAJAN Vs. HANUMANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal, in Case No. 87/2004 dated 28.12.2004. Appeal in M.F.A. No. 1653/2005 is filed by the insurance company. Appeal in M.F.A. No. 3370/2005 is filed by the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. Therefore, these two appeals are heard together. It is the case of the claimant Hanumantha, Son of Yallappa, that he was working as a loader and unloader under Sudhakar Reddy. On 4.12.2003, while discharging his duties as a loader and unloader in the vehicle bearing No. KA-33/1323, he sustained grievous injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver and, therefore, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He had also filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raichur, in MVC No. 20/2004, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the claimant. According to him, the said petition was withdrawn since he could not pursue parallel proceedings.

(2.) The insurance company contended that there was no master and servant relationship between the claimant and Sudhakar Reddy in whose favour policy has been issued. According to the company the claimant was a passenger in a tipper, therefore, such risk was not covered under the policy issued by the appellant-insurance company. In the circumstances, he requests the Court to dismiss the appeal.

(3.) The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation considering the evidence let in by the parties held that there existed master and servant relationship between the claimant and Sudhakar Reddy and that the insurance company has to satisfy the award. Accordingly, he passed an order awarding Rs. 1,14,922/- with interest at 12% per annum. This order is challenged by the insurance company. The claimant has also filed an appeal against the said order seeking enhancement of compensation.