A M IBRAHIM Vs. ZIGZAG SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the workmen against the award dated 29.06.2004 made in W.C. No. 162 of 2003 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour - I (Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation - I), Chennai - 6. The applicant in his application stated that he was a driver under the first opposite party and he sustained injuries i.e., fracture of right femur and back lane fracture and fracture at right hip, dislocation in right shoulder as well as in left wrist and multiple injuries all over the body, in the accident which took place on 23.07.2002 at about 6.00 p.m., in the course of employment under the first opposite party; and that after the accident, the applicant took treatment at Jayashree hospital on 23.07.2002 and 24.07.2002 and then continued his treatment as inpatient at P.K. Hospital from 26.07.2002 to 28.08.2002 and then continued his treatment at KMC Hospital from 28.07.2002 to 21.08.2002 and till now continuing his treatment as outpatient; and that during the course of treatment, a steel rod has been inserted in the right femur and also a screw has been inserted in the right hip and consequently, the applicant's movement has been totally restricted and he could not do any normal work at the age of 35 years and as such the loss of earning capacity has to be taken into account as 100%. It is also stated that since the first opposite party took Insurance Policy with the second opposite party, the second opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the applicant. Hence, he claimed compensation for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable by the second opposite party with interest from the date of accident.

(2.) Even though the first opposite party in its counter admitted that the applicant was working as Car Driver under this opposite party, denied the income of the applicant. It is also stated that the first opposite party is not liable to pay compensation and the second opposite party alone is liable to pay compensation as the accident took place due to the negligent of the applicant and the van bearing registration No. TN-09-S-708 was insured with the second opposite party and the same was valid from 23.04.2002 to 22.04.2003, and hence they prayed that the claim petition may be dismissed against this first opposite party with costs.

(3.) The second opposite party in its counter denied the avocation, age and income of the applicant, alleged accident, alleged injuries sustained by the applicant, and the period of treatment undergone by the applicant etc. The fact that the alleged accident had occurred in the course of and arose out of the applicant's alleged employment with the first opposite party, was also denied in the counter. It is also denied that the vehicle involved in the alleged accident was covered by a valid policy of insurance issued by the second opposite party, on the date of the accident and there was no breach of any conditions stated therein. Therefore, the second opposite party prayed that the above Claim Petition may be dismissed against this second opposite party with exemplary costs.