( 1 ) (APPEAL Under Section 30 of W. C. Act against the order/decree in WC No. 238 of 1996 dated 31-7-2000 on the file of the Court of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Guntur ). This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act (for short the Act) is filed by the applicant, in W. C. No. 238 of 1996, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Guntur (herein after referred to as the Commissioner ).

( 2 ) THE appellant presented the claim before the Commissioner alleging that he was employed with the first respondent herein as Cleaner on lorry bearing No. AT7/7565 and that on 23. 05. 1996, he sustained injuries at Chilakaluripet Check Post, while on duty. He stated that he sustained fracture to the right leg below the knee and was admitted in to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, and that even after treatment, he is unable to do normal duties on account of the disability.

( 3 ) THE first respondent remained ex parte. The Second respondent filed counter affidavit denying its liability. It disputed the very employment of the appellant with the first respondent as well as the occurrence of accident resulting in any injury. It was also pleaded that since the vehicle, on which the applicant was said to have been engaged, is not involved in the accident, it cannot be held liable.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the appellant, A. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A. 1 to A. 5 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, R. W. 1 was examined and Exs. R. 1 to R. 3 were marked. On a consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, the Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that the injuries received by the appellant are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner rejected the claim of the appellant without following the procedure prescribed under the Act and thereby, he has defeated the very benefit conferred on the appellant under the Act. He submits that the nature of injury received by the appellant was serious, resulting in permanent disability and there was no justification for the Commissioner in treating it as a simple injury. Alternatively, he submits that even if the injury is simple, the Act provides for compensation and the W. C. Case ought not to have been rejected.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the second respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant sustained the alleged injury, while crossing the road on being hit by a car, and the same cannot be brought within the purview of the Act. He submits that even otherwise the injury was so simple that it did not result in permanent or temporary disablement to the appellant and that the order under appeal does not call for any interference.

( 6 ) THE appellant was employed with the first respondent as Cleaner. He pleaded that he sustained injuries to his leg on 23. 05. 1996 at Chilakaluripet Check Post, when he was crossing the road. The occurrence of the accident and sustenance of injuries by the appellant is not much in dispute. Ex. A. 1 is the First Information Report issued in the context of the accident. Ex. A. 2 is the O. P. chit issued to the appellant by the Government General Hospital at Guntur for treatment of the injuries.

( 7 ) THE contention of the second respondent that it is not liable to pay compensation for the injuries of workmen received on account of rash and negligent driving of another vehicle is rather difficult to be accepted. Such a plea may hold good in case of claims made under the Motor Vehicles Act. Under the Workmens Compensation Act, what makes the owner of the vehicle or the insurer liable is, the death or injuries to workmen engaged on the insured vehicle. It is not necessary that such death or injury should result from an accident involving the vehicle, on which they were working.

( 8 ) THE Commissioner rejected the claim by evaluating the injury sustai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document