The main legal point established is the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident during the course of employment under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

1. The appellant/3rd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A. (MD).No.240 of 2007, against the order passed in W.C.No.42 of 2004, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli.

2. The petitioner, has filed the claim in W.C.No.42 of 2004, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, during the course of doing his work as a driver under the employment of the 1st respondent. It was submitted that the petitioner was working as a driver under the employment of the 2nd respondent and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On 26.07.2003, when the petitioner was driving the car bearing registration No.TN-04A-9177, which is owned by the 1st and 2nd respondents and insured with the 3rd respondent, it was involved in an accident at Palladam. In the accident, the petitioner sustained grievious injures and sustained fractures of his right shoulder bone, fractures in his right arm, right wrist, right knee and fingers of his left arm. As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner has sustained permanent disability. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above claim as against the 1st 2nd and 3rd respondents.

3. The 1st respondent, in his counter has submitted that he had never employed the petitioner as his driver and that no employer-employee relationship prevailed between them. It was submitted that on the date of the accident, he was not the owner of the said car and that he had sold the car on 16.11.2000 itself. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

4. The 2nd respondent did not submit any counter and had not participated in the enquiry. Hence, he was set ex-parte by the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation.

5. The 3rd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the 1st respondent's car had not been insured with them and that the driver of the car did not have a valid driving licence to drive the car at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the petitioner had travelled only as a passenger in the said car at the time of accident. It was submitted that the petitioner had sustained only simple injuries and that the claim was excessive. The 3rd respondent had further submitted in its additional counter that no claim had been received by them from the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent's car had not been insured with them. It was submitted that the F.I.R had not been filed and that the petitioner did not have a valid driving licence to drive the car. It was submitted that the petitioner had only travelled as a passenger in the said car.

6. The Commissioner for Workmen's compensation framed four issues for consideration in the case namely: (1) Did the petitioner sustained permanent disability due to the injuries caused in the accident, which he was doing his duty in the course of employment under the 2nd respondent?; (2) If so, what is the nature of disability certificate. On the 3rd respondent's side, one witness was examined and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2, namely Ex.R1-letter sent to 1st respondent and Ex.R2-insurance policy.

7. The Commissioner for Workmen's compensation observed that no F.I.R had been filed by the petitioner. However, it is seen that a lawyer's notice had been sent to the respondents. It is observed on scrutiny of Ex.P1, wound certificate that the petitioner had sustained injuries in the accident when the car bearing registration No.TN-04A-9177 was involved in the accident. The Commissioner, on observing that the respondents had not sent any reply notice to the notice sent by the petitioner and an observing that no rebuttal evidence had been let in on the side of the respondents and on opining that merely because of non filing of F.I.R, it cannot be concluded that no accident had taken place, he