ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. K S PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Anil Kumar, the deceased, was employed as an attender under respondent No. 1 (private medical practitioner ). On 13. 10. 1995 the respondent No. 1 (employer) directed the deceased workman at about 11. 30 p. m. in the night to carry the drug load on the motor cycle from the clinic to his residence. The deceased while driving the motor cycle met with an accident and died. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 herein who are the legal heirs of the deceased made a claim before the workmen's Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation. The Workmen's compensation Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,13,570. Insurer of the motor cycle is directed to pay the compensation, hence the insurer is in appeal.

(2.) SUBSTANTIAL questions of law that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as follows:

(3.) MR. A. M. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (insurer)strenuously argued that the deceased was basically employed as an attender and not as a driver. The expression 'engaged in driving of the vehicle' would apply only to four-wheelers and not to two-wheelers. It is argued that assuming that the deceased was casually employed to drive the motor cycle cannot be deemed to be a driver and the entrustment of driving of the vehicle would be in the nature of casual employment, therefore, would not be a workman within the definition of section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. On the above grounds it is argued that the workmen's Compensation Commissioner was not justified in holding that the deceased was a workman and that accident occurred in the course of and out of employment.