(1.) Respondent 1 filed an application against the Appellant, who was respondent 1 in the lower Court and who is a permanent resident of Bangalore, in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kolar District, for compensation on account of the death of her son and later added Respondent 3 as a party thereto. She alleged that her son had been employed by the Appellant in his lorry service which he was plying in the Kolar Gold Fields, and that on 26-2-49 while the lorry was so plying the deceased met with his death owing to an accident which took place during the course of his employment under the Appellant as his workman. The Appellant pleaded that he never employed the deceased and did note even know him and that there was no privity of contract between himself and the deceased. He no doubt owned the lorry but on the concerned date he had leased it out to Respondent 2 who was a motor driver for a period of one month from 5-2-1949 to 5-3-1949. He was therefore not in possession and control of the lorry or of the persons employed by respondent 2 during the period of the lease. Respondent 2, who is from Andersonpet, K. G. F., pleaded that he was not the owner but only a driver of the vehicle, that the Appellant had informed him that the insurance on the vehicle and road taxes had been paid by him and that he (Respondent 2) was not responsible for any claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act which should be paid by the Insurance Company or by the owner of the vehicle.
(2.) The Commissioner held that the deceased was an employee under the Appellant and had died in the course of his employment and that the case fell within the Workmen's Compensation Act. He based his decision on the ground that the Appellant had obtained a Public Carrier permit and his business was to transport goods and commodities for hire; and as respondent 2 had taken the lorry from the Appellant for the same purpose, more or less, on a contract basis, the Appellant became the principal and respondent 2 a contractor within the meaning of Section 12, Work men's Compensation Act, and that the Appellant was therefore liable to pay compensation. He, therefore, awarded compensation of Rs. 810 against the Appellant only.
(3.) The terms and conditions under which the lorry came to be in possession of respondent 2 is evidenced by an agreement dated 5-2-49 executed by him in favour of the Appellant so that that portion of the case is clear and-cannot be seriously disputed. By that agreement respondent 2, took on lease, the Appellant's lorry for a period of one month. He agreed to drive it himself and not to sub let it or deliver it to anybody else's possession. He undertook to hold himself responsible for its proper care, to keep it cleaned and oiled and to be liable for any damages to the lorry or its tyres and tubes. The Appellant was to supply a cleaner for the lorry whose salary was to be paid by the Appellant alone, but respondent 2 had to pay him some daily batta and pay for his food expenses. The lorry was taken on lease for the express purpose of respondent 2's business in Kolar District of transporting articles.