GOPAKUMAR Vs. CHANDRAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against an order of the Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation, Thiruvananthapuram dated 7.12.2009 in W.C.C. No. 67 of 2005. As per the order appealed against, though the appellant has been awarded compensation, the second respondent/Insurance Company has been held not liable to pay compensation to the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the exoneration of the Insurance Company.

(2.) The appellant is a worker, who is adept at boring or deepening of open wells. He was an employee of the first respondent. On 11.7.2003 at about 8.30 a.m. when the appellant was being conveyed to a work site at Kallara in a goods vehicle (mini lorry) owned by the first respondent, the vehicle skidded, the appellant was thrown off and he suffered serious injuries. The appellant sustained compound fracture of both the bones of his right leg. He was immediately rushed to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and was treated there. Later on, he underwent a surgery on 13.10.2003 and a nail was implanted in his bones. Though he was discharged from the Hospital on 24.10.2003, he contended that he was totally disabled from doing the work in which he was engaged earlier. He was earning Rs.4,000.00 per month at the time of the accident. He claimed compensation for the injuries suffered by him. According to his employer, the first respondent, it is the second respondent/Insurer who is liable to pay the compensation amount. The appellant had approached the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner seeking the grant of compensation. The application was numbered as W.C.C. No. 67 of 2005 and was tried.

(3.) In his written statement, the first respondent admitted the employer-employee relationship as well as the accident that had occurred. He admitted that he was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. According to him, the vehicle had a valid insurance policy issued by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it was contended that the compensation, if any, found payable was to be paid by the second respondent. He admitted the monthly salary of the appellant also.