This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award, dated 05.09.2011, passed in W.C.No.8 of 2005 on the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirapalli.
2. The appellant is the second respondent in W.C.No.8 of 2005. The first respondent herein filed the said petition stating that on 25.03.2004, when he was loading and unloading the things, the driver of the lorry suddenly took the vehicle and caused the accident and as a result, the injured sustained injuries and further stating that accident occurred during the course of employment as a loadman under the services of the second respondent/owner.
3. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli, the first respondent/claimant examined one witness as P.W.1 and marked six documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P6. The appellant examined one witness as R.W.1 and marked one document as Ex.R1.
4. After considering all the materials and evidences, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli, held that the accident happened in the course of employment by the injured as a loadman and since the vehicle is insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
5. Challenging the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the liability.
6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:
?1.Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is justified that the exclusion clause in the policy, which specifically provides that in case of drilling rigs the liability incurred by the insurer arising out of its operation as a tool or by the use of the plant forming part of the vehicles or attached to the vehicle?;
2.Whether the drilling rig mounted on the vehicle comes under the category of road transport vehicle?; and
3.Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner without examining the Doctor who issued the disability certificate can take it as genuine one??
7. Though various grounds have been raised in the grounds of appeal, at the time of making arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant restricted his argument only to the question of Master and Servant relationship between the first and second respondents and submitted that the Deputy Commissioner erred in coming to the conclusion that the first respondent has sustained injuries in the course of employment in spite of the fact that the employment is not proved and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
8.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that after considering the evidence only, the Deputy Commissioner passed an award in favour of the second respondent and directed the appellant to pay the compensation and therefore, the award of the Deputy Commissioner does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. In support of his submission, the learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to inner page No.4 of the award, wherein it has been discussed as follows:
?....,t;tHf;fpy; kDjhuh; jug;gpy; k.rh.M- 5 kDjhuhpd; fhar;rhd;W jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. mjpy; kDjhuh; 25.03.2004 md;W brq;fpg;gl;o mUnf jw;brayhf fpnud; bgy;oy; ,lJ if khl;o rpije;j fhak; mile;Js;shh; vd;W kUj;Jth; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;shh;. nkYk; Kjy; vjph;kDjhuh; ,t;tHf;fpy; M$uhfp gjpYiua[k; jhf;fy; bra;Js;shh;. thJiuapd; nghJk>; Kjy; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; kDjhuh; jd;dplk; xU bjhHpyhspahf ntiy ghh;j;jija[k; rk;gt jpdj;jd;W Vw;gl;l gzpapil tpgj;jpy; fhak; mile;jija[k; xg;g[f; bfhz;Ls;shh;. Vdnt Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if gjpag;glhjjpdhy; ,Hg;gPL bfhLf;f ,ayhJ vd;w ,uz;lhk; vjph;kDjhuhpd; thjk; Vw;f ,ayhJ vd;W jPh;khdpf;fpd;nwd;....?
9. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
10. In view of the above, it is seen that after considering the evidences only, the Deputy Commissioner has fixed the liability and has come to the right conclusion and directed the appellant to pay the compensation, I do not any infirmity in the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner and hence, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents.
11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 05.09.2011 made in W.C.No.8 of 2005 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirapalli, is hereby confirmed. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, if not already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount, without filing any formal application before the Court below. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
To,
1.The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirapalli.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.