MANOHAR BHIMAPPA MORE Vs. MAHADEV BHIMAPPA MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant-injured made an application before the workmen's Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the course of and out of employment. The respondent No. 1 is the owner of the tractor-trailer. The injured is the brother of respondent No. 1 and contends that he was employed as a coolie in the tractor-trailer at the time of accident. The injured also stood as guarantor for repayment of loan borrowed by the respondent no, 1 for purchase of the tractor-trailer in question. The insurer, respondent No. 2, took up the plea that the injured is the brother of the respondent No. 1 and cannot be considered as a workman and sought exoneration of liability.

(2.) THE Commissioner for Workmen's compensation upheld the contention of the insurer and rejected the claim without considering the other aspects.

(3.) ON thorough consideration of the facts, the view taken by the Workmen's compensation Commissioner is bad in law. After all the tractor-trailer is meant to be used for agriculture purpose and it requires employment of people. In the rural lifestyle, it is not uncommon to find the practice of oral appointment for specific purpose and time. Many a time, the persons in the family would be employed for doing the work instead of employing strangers. The fact that the injured is the brother and the guarantor for repayment of the loan is not a valid reason to hold that he was not a workman employed in connection with the tractor-trailer. The member of the family so employed cannot be considered as a workman in law only when he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Hence there is no inhibition in law for employment of member of the family in connection with the tractor-trailer. In view of the peculiar family relationship it is absurd to insist on documentary proof of appointment and the payment of wages by cash as the only mode of consideration for proof of employment.