SUGUNA Vs. KARTHIKEYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the owner of the vehicle has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 03.11.2015 in W.C.No.61 of 2015 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Coonor, Erode Camp.

(2.) The case of the claimant/1st respondent herein is that when he was working under the appellant herein as a driver in the lorry bearing Registration No.KA.01.AE.1855, on 01.08.2009, he was loading the ropes which is to be taken to Coimbatore in the lorry at Pollachi near Negamam Police Station limit, at Chinneripalayam, at that time, the 1st respondent/claimant fell down from the lorry and sustained serious and grievous injuries, due to which his left leg bone behind his knee got fractured and one of his nerves was carved and he was immediately taken to a private hospital at Pollachi for treatment and later, he was admitted in Vinayaka Hospital as in-patient from 02.08.2009 to 29.08.2009, and he had undergone surgery. At the time of hospitalisation, the claimant / 1st respondent spent more than a Lakhs of Rupees for the said treatment in the hospital. He has also filed a claim petition stating that the lorry was belonging to the 1st respondent / appellant herein and for the said accident which was happened in the course of employment, the appellant herein/1st respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant, but, the appellant/1st respondent had informed the claimant/1st respondent herein that since the lorry has been insured with the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company, the claimant / 1st respondent herein would get necessary compensation from the Insurance Company and therefore, the claimant need not register any complaint before the concerned Police Station. Based on the assurance given by the appellant herein, the claimant did not give any complaint before the concerned Police Station and he asked the compensation from the respondents 1 and 2. Since he has not received any reply from the respondents 1 and 2 herein, he filed a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Authority.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Deputy Commissioner of labour has failed to consider that the appellant had categorically admitted the employment of the 1st respondent herein and she had admitted the 1st respondent herein sustained injuries during the course of employment when the accident took place on 01.08.2009 and the vehicle had insurance cover for the period between 24.01.2009 and 23.01.2010, ought to have directed the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay the compensation, when nature of the accident, employment and the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent herein were proved which was disbelieved by the Authorities and had fixed the responsibilities on the owner of the vehicle/appellant herein for paying compensation to the 1st respondent and prays for setting aside the same.