Aggrieved by the dismissal of W.C.C. No.78/2002 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thrissur, the applicant has come up in appeal.
2. The case of the appellant was that he was employed by the first opposite party as the driver of his triller bearing Reg.No.KL-8/K-3717and the triller capsized thereby he was subjected to an accident out of and during the course of his employment with the first opposite party. He has suffered injuries. The first opposite party has chosen to remain exparte. The second opposite party, who is the insurer of the triller, has filed an objection taking up almost all the contentions under the sun, with a view to denying compensation to the appellant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.C. Harikumar and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimottil. The first respondent is still not contesting the matter.
4. The first respondent has no case that the appellant was not employed by him. Admittedly, the insurance policy issued by the 2nd respondent herein covers the personal accident to the driver. It is true that the case was not preferred as a motor accident claim. At the same time, the evidence of appellant as AW1 clearly shows that he was employed by the first opposite party. It is for the 2nd respondent herein to disprove the said fact, if at all they have got such a contention that he was not employed by the 1st respondent. It seems that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had referred the appellant to a Medical Board and the Medical Board has assessed his disability at 7%. It is a fact that no further evidence is required to conclude that the appellant is entitled to get compensation.
5. It seems that by maintaining two sentences at the concluding part of the impugned order, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has merely stated that from the evidence and pleadings there was no cogent evidence to show that the appellant sustained the injury out of and in the course of his employment with the 1st respondent. The said finding is unfounded and totally erroneous. It stands proved that the appellant is a workman employed by the first opposite party. The matter has to go back to the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to calculate the compensation payable to the appellant and such compensation has to be paid by the 2nd respondent herein.
In the result, the MFA is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is found that the appellant was employed by the 1st respondent and a workman within the meaning of Workmen's Compensation Act, and he was duly covered by the insurance policy issued by the 2nd respondent. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner shall calculate the compensation to be granted to the appellant and dispose of the matter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties shall appear before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on 25.08.2014.
ul/-
Sd/-
B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE [True copy] P.S. to Judge