BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the award dated 26.05.2011, made in W.C.No.139/2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai.

(2.) It is the case of the 1st respondent/claimant that he sustained injury during the course of employment under the 2nd respondent. He laid a claim petition in W.C.No.139/2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent/employer and the insurance company with which the vehicle of the 2nd respondent insured, filed counter affidavits resisting the claim. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,62,655/- to be payable by the appellant to the 1st respondent/claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has filed this appeal on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) On the above substantial questions of law, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation failed to consider that the 1st respondent/claimant was working as driver in a Mahindra Van bearing registration No.TN-67-A-2872 belonging to the 2nd respondent who entrusted the vehicle to a contractor one Saravanan who in turn used the vehicle to transport the workers employed in the 3rd respondent Mill. It is further submitted that the above vehicle was originally owned by one Aliyar Kutty and insurance policy also stood in his name for the period between 14.07.2006 and 107.2007 and prior to the accident, the said vehicle was transferred to the 2nd respondent, but the said transfer was not intimated to the appellant and that no premium was collected from the 2nd respondent after the alleged transfer of vehicle. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that since there was only a contractual relationship between the 1st respondent/claiamant and the 2nd respondent after the transfer of vehicle, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. In support of the said contention, he relied on the following decisions:-