ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. V. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order in W.C.C. No. 93/89, dated 25th June 1990 on the file of the Court of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kozhikode. The Insurance Company is the Appellant. The 1st Respondent is a taxi driver and the 2nd Respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The 1st Respondent herein was the applicant before the Labour Commissioner. He was employed as driver in a tourist taxi No. KRZ 63 owned by the 2nd Respondent and insured with the Appellant and that on 22nd December 1988 while he was driving the said car from Ramanattukara to Feroke, an auto rickshaw which was proceeding in front of the car suddenly turned to the right and to avoid hitting the auto rickshaw he turned the auto rickshaw to his right. While so a lorry came from the opposite direction hit against the car as a result of which he sustained fracture on the right leg and a lacerated injury above the right eye. The claimant further alleged that though the fracture bone was united, it caused shortening of the right leg and therefore he was unable to drive the vehicle and also to do any manual work. According to him, he was earning a monthly wage of Rs. 1,500 and claimed lump sum payment of Rs. 50,000 as compensation.

(2.) The owner of the vehicle admitted employment of the driver and also the accident but contended that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver and that he was given wages only according to the work done by him.

(3.) The Insurance Company who is the Appellant before us contended that the driver is put to strict proof of the accident and the claim. The driver filed the rejoinder refuting the allegations of the 2nd opposite party (Appellant herein) and stated that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the Insurance Company by Policy No. 42326/11/0/MV/88I7/RD valid from 28th April 1988 to 27th April 1989 and that he was treated as in-patient in the Medical College Hospital, Calicut. The 1st Respondent/applicant was examined as A.W.1. He produced in proof Exts. A-l. to A-4. He also deposed in support of his case. He also proved the documents. The opposite parties cross-examined the driver. In cross-examination, the driver has stated that Ext. B-l is the photostat copy of the Registration Certificate of the car and Ext. B-2 is the photostat copy of the Policy issued by the Insurance Company and that he was getting Rs. 1,500 as monthly wages. In the cross-examination of the counsel for the 2nd opposite party the driver has stated that he had told the doctor that he could not drive the vehicle because of the injuries sustained by him. As already noticed, Exts. A-l to A-4 were produced by the driver and marked. The opposite parties have not objected to the marking of those documents. The Deputy Labour Commissioner on consideration of Exts. A-1 to A-4 came to the conclusion that the driver has proved the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 22nd December 1988 during the course of his employments as a driver of the car owned by the 1st opposite party.