NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. SAVICHAN K D

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kannur in W.C.C. 24/03. The applicant, claimed to be an employee under the opposite party sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.98,850/ -. The insurance company has disputed the employer -employee relationship as well as the coverage under the policy. The substantial questions of law as allowed as per the amendment application are as follows.

(2.) IN order to entitle the claimant to have compensation it is imperative to establish the employer -employee relationship. Now the sphere of controversy between the parties is that the claimant is an employee in the Bishop's house and he is not an employee of the first opposite party and therefore there is no employer -employee relationship and therefore the claim will not lie. When it is a Bishop's house and a person is employed, there are methodologies by which the parties can successfully prove under whom the claimant is working. If the claimant is able to establish that he is working under the first opposite party then he can be classified as an employee for the reason that one need not be a full time rider of a vehicle but in the discharge of the duty and in the course of employment if he is directed by the employer to ride a vehicle and he meets with an accident the position will be covered. But the fundamental question of employer -employee relationship must be established. When questions are put to him in the cross -examination the claimant only gives evasive answers and therefore the evidence is not properly adduced and the appreciation of the same is not in accordance with law. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Compensation Commissioner on employer -employee relationship.

(3.) I do not propose to interfere with the quantum awarded in this case and therefore the scope of remand is only for these two limited purposes.