M. Natarajan vs M. Vijayapandi

R. Karuppiah, J.—The appellant/claimant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and prayed for to set aside the order dated 27.6.2005 passed in W.C. No. 110 of 2003 by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Madurai.

Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

The appellant/claimant has filed a claim petition for compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act r/w Rule 20 of the Workmen Compensation Rules 1924, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,75,651/-.

In the claim petition, it is stated that the appellant was employed under the first respondent as Load-man in his lorry bearing Registration No. TN 57 Z 2799 and the accident had occurred on 11.07.2001 in which the appellant sustained grievous injuries and therefore claimed compensation from the owner of the vehicle and from the second respondent/Insurance Company.

The owner of the vehicle namely the first respondent herein not filed any counter and also did not appear before the authority. Therefore the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Madurai passed an order of ex-parte against R1. The second respondent/Insurance Company filed counter and contested the claim petition but not produced any document and also not examined any witness. On the side of claimant, two witnesses examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked ten documents as Ex. A1 to Ex. A10. The Deputy Commissioner has discussed about the said oral and documentary evidence and finally held that the claimant has not proved that he was a workmen under first respondent and also failed to prove the injuries sustained only in the above said accident and hence dismissed the above claim petition. Aggrieved over the above said dismissal order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, the appellant herein has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

This Court has admitted the above said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

Whether the finding of the Tribunal that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the first respondent and the claimant is wrong as because of there is no specific denial by the first respondent who can only speak with regard to the same?

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contended that the first respondent who is the owner of the vehicle not appeared before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in the above said proceedings so as to deny the above said relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and the first respondent. In the absence of denial, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has wrongly held that there is no independent evidence to prove the employment under the first respondent and on that ground rejected the claim by stating that no relationship of employer and employee.

On a perusal of the records would reveal that only the appellant adduced oral evidence and also marked documents. The owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent/Insurance Company has also not produced any documents and not adduced any oral evidence to deny the contention of the appellant. In the above said circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has wrongly held that the appellant has failed to prove the employer-employee relationship between the appellant and first respondent and also wrongly held that the accident was also not proved. Therefore the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is absolutely illegal and also perverse as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Further, since the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has held that the appellant is not entitled to claim compensation, the Deputy Commissioner has not arrived at the quantum of compensation, the appellant/claimant is entitled to. In the above said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the dismissal order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation in W.C. No. 110 of 2003 is to be set aside since it is a perverse and also alleged findings and the case is to be remanded back to the above said authority to consider both sides contentions on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence afresh and then to pass orders on merit.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the dismissal order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Madurai on 27.6.2005 in W.C. No. 110 of 2003 is set aside and the case is remitted back to the same authority and directed to give opportunity to both sides and then pass an award on merits and in accordance with law afresh, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.