THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. K. VIPIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE insurer is the appellant. The award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is under challenge. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned award is palpably perverse in as much as there is absolutely no credible material on record to hold that there was any employer -employee relationship between the alleged injured claimant and the insured, who is the father of the claimant. He also argued that the Commissioner erred in law in awarding compensation on the basis of Ext.A1 disability certificate and also in awarding interest as has been done.

(2.) WE have looked into the entire records.

(3.) WE also recall the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules in order to say that the mere possession of driving licence does not enable a driver to prove that he is working as driver under an employer. There is no evidence that the claimant possess due and necessary licence and authorisation in terms of the laws, to be employed as a driver by another. With the aforesaid, we are unable to sustain the impugned award. The same does not stand on counts of law.