E MUTHU Vs. SANTHI ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-2/Deputy Commissioner of Labour-2 (Employee's Compensation), Teynampet, Chennai-600 006 dated 11.10.2010 made in W.C.No.466/2008.

(2.) The claimant workman is the appellant in the present appeal. He made the claim for compensation on the basis of his contention that he was employed as a workman doing the work of grinding of motor under the first respondent herein on a daily wage of Rs.200/-, apart from annual bonus, travelling, tea and other allowances and that on 31.12.2007 at about 10.00 a.m, he sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, resulting in complete loss of sight of his left eye and other multiple injuries. He made the claim against the first respondent herein as his employer and the second respondent herein as the insurer, on the file of the Commissioner for Employee s Compensation-2, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.

(3.) The first respondent/employer did not appear before the Commissioner for Employee s Compensation and he did not file any objection also. The second respondent/insurer alone filed a counter denying the averments made by the claimant and also contending that the claimant should prove that he was a workman under the first respondent; that he was in receipt of a daily wage of Rs.200/- and that he sustained injury in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment under the first respondent. It was also contended therein that the claimant should prove his age, nature and the extent of disability. Apart from the above said general denial and contentions intended to cast the burden of proof on the workman/claimant, the second respondent had also taken a plea that the employer, namely the first respondent had insured only five workman employed under the first respondent under a policy bearing Policy No.411901/48/2007/15; that the appellant herein/claimant was not covered by the insurance policy and that the employer, namely the first respondent herein did not inform the second respondent/insurer of the accident in which the appellant/claimant sustained injuries leading to the alleged permanent disability. Based on the above said contentions and also contending that the amount claimed was not made in accordance with the provisions of the Employee's Compensation Act and on the other hand, it was highly exorbitant and imaginary, the second respondent herein pleaded before the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation-2 for the dismissal of the claim as not maintainable.