RAJENDER KUMAR Vs. SHYAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short "the Act"), lays challenge to the judgment/award dated 8.1.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Mandi, exercising powers of the Commissioner under the Act in case No.223/13, whereby claim petition having been filed by the petitioner under Sections 4, 15 and 22 of the Act, seeking therein compensation, came to be dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that claimant filed petition under Sections 4, 15 and 22 of the Act, seeking therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- besides other reliefs on account of injury suffered by him during his employment as driver with taxi bearing No.HP-01K-0210 (maruti van), which allegedly met with an accident on 14.7.2007, while claimant was driving it and had reached at Siram Nala near Village Patron. In the aforesaid accident, allegedly claimant suffered multiple grievous injuries and remained admitted in Zonal Hospital Mandi, from where he was further referred to the IGMC Shimla. As per record, claimant remained indoor patient w.e.f. 16.7.2007 to 3.9.2007. Claimant further claimed that prior to the incident, he was earning sum of Rs. 7,000 pm, i.e. Rs. 4,000/- as salary and Rs. 1500 per month as diet money including daily expenses. He also averred that apart from above, he was earning Rs.1500 pm from agriculture.

(3.) Respondents contested the aforesaid claim petition filed by the claimant on the ground of maintainability. Respondent No.1, who happened to be owner of the vehicle, specifically denied the relationship of employer and employee between him and claimant and claimed that accident did not take place during the course of the employment. He also averred that in case, claimant is found entitled for compensation, respondent No.2 may be held liable because the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.2 at the time of alleged incident vide policy No. 263202/2007/1991. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company also opposed the aforesaid claim of the claimant on the ground that the petitioner was not holding effective and valid license to drive the category of vehicle. It also claimed that since there was no employer employee relationship between the claimant and respondent No.1, respondent No.2 is under no obligation to indemnify respondent No.1. On the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, court below framed following issues:-