THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NAYYR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this first appeal filed under Sec. 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 the appellant/insurance company impugns the judgment of the Employee's Compensation Commissioner dated 19.1.2017 whereby the Employee's Compensation Commissioner had allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 was engaged as a driver on a vehicle being Truck No. HR-55-L-4189 owned by the respondent no.1 in the claim petition and who is the respondent no.2 herein. On 9.8.2015 the vehicle was on a business trip after it was got loaded from Dehradun and onwards to Chennai. When the vehicle reached Sanauli Road at Panipat in Haryana, it was parked on the side of the road to have its tyres etc checked. The respondent no.1 got electrocuted on account of electricity which passed through the truck from the live electric high voltage line. Electrocution resulted in injuries to both the respondent no.1 herein as also the cleaner of the truck (with respect to cleaner the company appeal FAO No. 209/2017 is filed). Both the respondent no. 1 herein and the cleaner Mohd. Shoaib were taken to hospital whereas the cleaner died due to electrocution, the respondent no.1 herein suffered grievous injuries on his body and left hand, resulting in amputation of his left hand. The case was registered in Police Station Chandnibagh, District Panipat, Haryana, dated 9.8.2015 vide U.D. No. 32/09. Respondent no.1 herein pleaded in the claim petition that since he is not in a position to drive a vehicle and which was his employment, he is therefore permanently disabled for life for doing his job of a driver and hence he should be granted compensation. Respondent no.1 was 42 years of age at the time of accident and was drawing wages at Rs. 8000.00 per month besides Rs.200 per day as food allowance.

(3.) Respondent no.2 herein, and who was the respondent no.1 in the claim petition, being the owner of the vehicle, did not appear and did not file his written statement. The appellant/insurance company contested the case by filing the written statement and it was pleaded therein that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2, and which is the only issue urged before this Court.