JUDGMENT

MFA.No.5500/2012 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 21.02.2012 passed in WCA/FC/CR.No.17/2011 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-division-6, Bangalore, that the claimant was not driver and there is no employer and employee relationship. Further alternatively the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is on the higher side and also higher percentage of disability is held by the learned Commissioner.

MFA.No.5117/2014 is filed by the claimant challenging the aforesaid judgment and award for seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The factum of accident is not in dispute.

3. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the claimant is a coolie by profession as it is reflected in the case sheet of the Victoria Hospital. Therefore, the claimant was not working as a driver under the employment of respondent No.1-owner of autorickshaw. Therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. Alternatively, it is contended that the doctor has stated that the claimant had suffer