TARACHAND SHRAWANJI SHAMBHARKAR Vs. PRASHANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th October, 2010, in W.C.A. No.19 of 1999 by the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur. The Claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was filed by the present appellant claiming compensation for the injuries he suffered while driving a truck bearing registration No.MH 31 W 2717 on 29th June, 1997. The appellant contended that the accident occurred during the course of his employment with respondent No.1 and it arose out of that employment. He submitted that at the time of accident, respondent No.1 was the owner of the said truck, while respondent No.3 was its previous owner. He also claimed that the truck was insured with respondent No.2 with the insurance policy having been issued in the name of previous owner respondent No.3. The petition proceeded exparte against the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3, but the respondent No.2 Insurance Company Ltd. resisted the application contending that the accident took place due to negligent act of the appellant himself and that the insurance policy of the offending truck was not issued in the name of respondent No.1.

(2.) The learned Commissioner, after considering the evidence available on record and hearing rival parties, recorded a finding that the appellant was the workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and as he sustained injuries during the course of employment he was entitled to receive compensation together with penalty. Learned Commissioner, also found that the insurance policy not being issued in the name of respondent No.1, only respondent No.1 was liable to pay compensation and he absolved respondent Nos.2 and 3 of any liability to pay compensation. Thus, by his judgment and order passed on 28th October, 2010, learned Commissioner granted compensation of Rs.1,29,576/ together with interest, penalty of Rs.50,000/ and costs of Rs.2,000/ to the appellant.

(3.) Not satisfied, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.