HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.M.A.No.158 of 2005 Date : 6-8-2014 Between:
Mohd. Saleem ..
Appellant And Syed Anwar Ibrahim and another .. Respondents Counsel for appellant : Sri G. Anil Kumar for Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor Counsel for respondents : None appeared The Court made the following :
JUDGMENT:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against order dated 29-2-2000 in Case No.WC/29/93 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad (Twin Cities) whereby he has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant.
The appellant who was an auto driver filed the claim petition before the Commissioner by stating that he was the driver of the auto belonging to respondent No.1 on a monthly salary of Rs.1000/- and batta of Rs.10/-; that on 6-6- 1989 he was proceeding in the auto from B.N. Reddy colony; and that when he has reached B.N. Reddy complex, one matador van bearing No.AIH 6721 came at a high speed and dashed a maruthi car which in turn has dashed the auto being driven by the appellant, resulting in multiple injuries to him. The appellant has therefore claimed a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-.
Respondent No.1 has neither filed counter-affidavit nor contested the case. He was therefore set-exparte.
Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it has inter alia denied the employee-employer relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1.
The appellant has examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition by holding that the appellant failed to establish the employee-employer relationship. In coming to the said conclusion, the Commissioner has relied upon Ex.A-1-FIR and the charge sheet filed in the criminal case wherein it was clearly mentioned that the appellant has hired the auto.
In the face of this clinching evidence, coupled with the fact that respondent No.1 has not supported the case of the appellant, the Commissioner has rightly held that there is no employee-employer relationship between the appellant and respondent No.1. I am therefore of the opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any case for interference with the order of the Commissioner.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-8-2014 AM