M. PARAMASIVAM Vs. AYYANAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant / first respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.3082 of 2003, against the order passed in W.C.No.71 of 2002, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour Court, Tirunelveli.

(2.) THE petitioner, viz., Ayyanar has filed the claim in W.C.No.71 of 2002, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,65,644/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, while he was doing his duty in the course of employment under the first respondent. It was submitted that the petitioner was employed in the first respondent's company, viz., "Manikandan Match Works" and that he was getting a daily wage of Rs.175/-. On 05.05.2001 , at about 7.30 p.m., when the petitioner was unloading the matchbox bundles from the first respondent's van bearing Registration No.TN-69-0780, the driver of the van, without sounding horn or giving any indication, had suddenly started the van in reverse and dashed the van against the petitioner. The petitioner sustained injuries in his lower hip and was admitted at the Doctor C.K.Chidambaram Hospital, wherein X-rays were taken and it was found that the petitioner's right hip bone had been fractured. He was treated as an inpatient for 10 days. As the petitioner experienced severe pain in his hip, he subsequently took treatment at Kovilpatti Government Hospital from 01.06.2001. It was found here that the movements of the petitioner's right thigh had been altered and that the petitioner had sustained 20% disability due to the accident. It was submitted that the petitioner was getting a monthly salary of Rs.1,950/- per month from the first respondent. As the first respondent had taken a policy of insurance with the second respondent extending coverage to his workers, the petitioner has filed the claim against both the respondents.

(3.) THE second respondent in his counter has submitted that the petitioner should prove through documentary evidence that he had worked in the first respondent's firm. The averments in the claim regarding the petitioner's daily wage, manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and disability were also not admitted. It was submitted that the petitioner has to prove that the first respondent's van had been insured with them at the time of accident. It was submitted that the injuries sustained by the petitioner had not occurred in the alleged accident but due to some other reasons. It was submitted that the F.I.R. had been filed belatedly after a delay of 25 days and that the reasons given by the petitioner for delay in filing the F.I.R. were not acceptable. It was submitted that as the petitioner had not worked as an employee under the first respondent, the second respondent could not be held liable to pay any compensation. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.