OUSEPH MATHAI Vs. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant's son, Joseph was a conductor in the bus, K.L.K. 1931 belonging to the Karur Motor Service, Kothamangalam, represented by the first opposite party. The bus met with an accident on 12th June 1965 as a result of which Joseph sustained injuries and died on 14th June 1965. The appellant filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation claiming Rs. 7,000 by way of compensation alleging that the monthly wages of the deceased amounted to Rs. 120. The second opposite party was the State Insurance Officer, Trivandrum.

(2.) The first opposite party contended that the deceased was not an employee of the Karur Motor Service on the relevant date and also that the transfer of registration of the bus, K.L.K. 1931 in favour of the Karur Motor Service was effected only on 1st March 1966 after the date of the accident. The State Insurance Officer admitted that the driver and the conductor of the bus were covered by the policy of insurance, but contended that the deceased was only a checker and as such not covered by the policy of insurance. Pending enquiry before the Commissioner, the first opposite party, the original proprietor of the Karur Motor Service died. Opposite parties Nos. 3 to 20 were impleaded as persons representing the Karur Motor Service. They put forward identical contentions as the original opposite party No. 1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that the deceased was an employee of the Karur Motor Service, that the bus, K.L.K. 1931 was owned by the Karur Motor Service that Joseph died of injuries caused in the course of his employment and that opposite parties Nos. 3 to 20 were liable to pay compensation to the appellant. The case of the appellant that the deceased was being paid at the rate of Rs. 30 per month and a daily batta of Rs. 3 was accepted; but in calculating the compensation the daily batta was excluded and compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,800 treating the monthly wages as Rs. 30. In other words the daily batta was not treated as part of the wages of the deceased. The liability of the State Insurance Officer was also found against.

(3.) In the present appeal, the appellant claims that he should have been allowed compensation treating the wages of the deceased as Rs. 120 inclusive of daily batta and that he is, therefore, entitled to Rs. 7,000 by way of compensation. It is also contended that the State Insurance Officer should have been made liable for the amount of compensation decreed in his favour.