MANICKAM A Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is the appellant. He was employed as a driver of the lorry bearing registration No. TAS 630. He sustained injuries when he was thrown over. He made a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation and Deputy Commissioner of labour, Salem against the first respondent herein. Subsequently, he impleaded the second respondent Insurance Company and on seeing the counter filed by the opposite parties, he also impleaded the third respondent in whose name the insurance policy stood at the time of the accident. The Commissioner dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident did not arise out of employment and did not answer the other issues that were raised by him, since this issue was answered in negative.

(2.) THE following substantial questions of law were raised by the appellant:

(3.) THE learned counsel on either side advanced their arguments. Since remitting the matter will only result in unnecessary delay, we proposed to decide the matter on the basis of the records available and the counsel also agreed to the same.