DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, CHITRADURGA BY THE MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO. 2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD. BANGALORE-560 027 Vs. SHRI. SIDDALING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd Respondent insurance company in CR. No. 218/2007 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chitradurga has come up in this appeal challenging liability as well as quantum of compensation awarded in the said proceedings by order dated 19.3.2009.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are as under: The case of claimant before the commissioner is that he was working as driver of Autorickshaw bearing No. KA -16/9536 belonging to 1st Respondent and insured with 2nd Respondent; insurance company. On 4.7.2007 while he was driving said Autorickshaw in the course of his employment, said Autorickshaw went out of his control and turtled resulting in injuries to claimant to his L1 and L2 vertebra of spinal cord in addition to that, he also suffered other injuries. Hence, he filed claim petition seeking compensation for the aforesaid injuries. In the said proceedings, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, Commissioner proceeded to partially allow the claim petition and awarded compensation to claimant in a sum of Rs. 1,79,399/ - payable with interest, at 12% p.a., from 30th date, of order till date of deposit. 2nd Respondent insurance company being aggrieved by the same has come up in this appeal.

(3.) IN this proceedings the fact that 1st Respondent is owner of Autorickshaw bearing No. KA -16/9536 and that said Autorickshaw is insured with 2nd Respondent insurance company, is not in dispute. However, the fact that claimant before Commissioner was working as driver under 1st Respondent, who is none other than his own brother, though disputed is not established by 2nd Respondent insurance company. Merely because claimant and 18th Respondent are brothers, it is not necessary that 1st Respondent should not employ his own brother as driver in Autorickshaw belonging to him. In this behalf, claimant has stated on oath that he has been working as drier under 1st Respondent in the aforesaid Autorickshaw and same is not denied or said relationship is not demonstrated to be false by insurance company adducing independent evidence. Further, the fact that father engaging services of son as driver or the brother engaging his own brother as driver cannot be disputed as decided by this Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Prakash Shankar Gurav and Another, ILR (2006) KAR 1036 , wherein it is held as under; 3. It is to be noted that a father engaging his son as an employee in a vehicle owned by the father is not prohibited in law nor it can be said that such a situation is not normally possible. Just as in any ether avocation, it is possible for a father to engage his own son as employee. If this proposition is accepted, the doubt cast on the documents filed by the claimant in support of his contention do not take on much significance. The accident is not denied. Though the injuries said to have been suffered by the claimant are disputed by the Appellant on the ground that they are not supported by any certificate issued by the competent authorities. It is to be noticed that however the claimant has furnished a certificate from a private doctor as to the injuries suffered by him. The appreciation of the material recorded by the Commissioner in a summary proceedings which is contemplated under the Act could not be tested on the touchstone of degree of proof required in more formal proceedings requiring an in depth examination of the details sought to be advanced in order to evidence a fraudulent claim.