LAWS(KAR)-2012-1-241

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HASSAN NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, 44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560025 Vs. SRI MAHALINGA @ MAHALINGAM S/O SRI GOVINDRAJ, MAJOR MALLENAHALLI K GRAMA CHINNAPUR

Decided On January 11, 2012
Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hassan Now Represented By Its Regional Manager Regional Office, 44/45, Residency Road, Bangalore - 560025 Appellant
V/S
Sri Mahalinga @ Mahalingam S/O Sri Govindraj, Major Mallenahalli K Grama Chinnapur Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Oriental Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 10 -03 -2009 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hassan (in short 'the Commissioner') in WCA/NF/CR/SR -11/2007 with regard to quantum of compensation awarded to the first respondent. The facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. The case of the claimant is that he was working as a cleaner in Canter Lorry bearing registration No. KA -13/A -5684 belonging to the second respondent. On 17 -02 -2006, while bringing the chickens from Andhra Pradesh, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry near Kollur Bridge, the said lorry met with an accident. Due to the accident the clamant sustained fracture of right femur and fracture of left radius; and also sustained other injuries. He was admitted to the Hospital and taken treatment. He claimed that due to the accident and fracture of right femur and radius, he is unable to do the work of cleaner. Prior to the accident, he was getting a salary of Rs. 4,500/ - p.m. and Rs. 50/ - per day as batta. Accident occurred during the course and out of employment. He was aged about 28 years. In view of the permanent disability, he could not do the work of cleaner and sought for compensation.

(2.) PURSUANT to the notice issued by the Commissioner, owner of the vehicle entered appearance and filed objections contending that the claimant was working as a cleaner in the Canter Lorry belonging to him. The said lorry is covered by the insurance and the Insurer is liable to pay the compensation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the second respondent.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation framed necessary issues.