PANDI @ PANDIARAJ Vs. S. AROKIASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant is the appellant. He has filed a claim petition under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the course of his employment.

(2.) According to the claimant, he was a Driver of a Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. TN 67-W 9068, which belongs to the respondent No. 1. On 14.11.2002, when he was driving the vehicle from south to north in Nagamangalam village, Madurai-Trichy Main Road, he lost control of the vehicle and dashed against the tamarind tree, due to which he sustained fracture over the right ankle and also injuries all over the body. Though he was given treatment, he suffered permanent disability. He filed a claim petition against the respondent No. 1 stating that he was the employee under respondent No. 1 and also against the respondent No. 2, insurance company.

(3.) However, the respondent No. 1 has filed a counter stating that he is not the owner of the vehicle and employer of the claimant. According to the respondent No. 1, he had sold the vehicle to one Alaguraj, who happened to be the brother of the claimant, as early as on 28.2.2002 and delivered the vehicle. He took a specific plea that he was not the employer of the claimant.