UNITED INDIA INSURANCE Vs. D.MANIKANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1923 to set aside the final award dated 11.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation (DCL) at Salem in W.C.No.44 of 2010 and to dismiss the claim petition.

(2.) The case of the 1st respondent / claimant is that he was working with the 2nd respondent as a co-driver for the mini tempo and the said vehicle belongs to the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent was paid a sum of Rs.6,000/- as salary, per month and that apart, a sum of Rs.100/- was paid as daily batta. One S.Mohan, son of Siddaian, had worked as driver in the above said vehicle. During the course of employment with the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent, on 21.02.2009 at about 2.30 p.m., was driving the Mini Tempo Vehicle, extremely left side, bearing Regn.No.TN30 Z 3931 from Kolathur to Chennampatti on the main road with the aforesaid driver, viz., S.Mohan, near Pappathi Kattu Pudur, at that time, a cow suddenly crossed the road, the 1st respondent applied brake, the vehicle turned turtle and capsized. Due to the said accident, the 1st respondent sustained grievous injuries and multiple fractures all over the body. Immediately, he was admitted in a private hospital for first aid and thereafter, he was admitted to CMC Hospital at Kovai as inpatient. Moreover, with regard to the accident, a complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent and FIR was registered by the Vellithiruppur Police for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC in Crime No.51 of 2009. Further, the 1st respondent is not able to do any work because of his permanent disability and he had incurred heavy expenditure for medical treatment, therefore, he has claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.

(3.) Per contra, the appellant denied the contentions and the averments of the 1st respondent. Moreover, the 1st respondent is none other than the son of the 2nd respondent and he was not a paid driver. There is absolutely no employer and employee relationship between the 1st and 2nd respondents. As the 1st respondent is not an employee under his father, viz., 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent cannot file a petition under workmen compensation Act and the 1st respondent purposely suppressed that the 2nd respondent is his father.