An appeal under the Employees Compensation Act requires a significant question of law, particularly regarding employer-employee relationships and evidence appreciation.

JUDGMENT

Second opposite party in ECC No.15 of 2017 on the files of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Peermade, Idukki, has filed this appeal.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 were the applicants before the Commissioner. The 4^th respondent herein was the first opposite party.

3. Husband of the 1^st respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3, Sri.Vijayakumar, died in an accident on 07.02.2015. The deceased was driving a car bearing Registration No.KL-7-BF-500 owned by the 4^th respondent at the time of accident. The claim was raised contending that the deceased was employed as a driver by the 4^th respondent and the accident occurred out of and during the course of employment.

4. The appellant as well as the 4^th respondent filed written statements. The 4^th respondent denied employer–employee relationship. He stated that the deceased was an autorickshaw driver and was never employed as a driver by him. He further stated that the accident occurred during the course of a personal trip to Coimbatore. Along with the deceased, one Sri.Abraham and Sri.Prasannakumar, the brother of the 4^th respondent were in the vehicle. He further stated that he is permanently residing at Ernakulam and the vehicle which met with accident is a private carrier used normally for travel to his native place at Kaviyoor in Pathanamthitta District. The 4^th respondent specifically contended that the accident did not occur during the course of employment as alleged by respondents 1 to 3.

5. The appellant in its written statement asserted that there was no employer–employee relationship between the deceased and the insured. The Company contended that at the time of accident, the deceased, one Mr.Abraham and the brother of the 4threspondent- Sri.Prasannakumar were travelling in the vehicle. In the accident Sri.Abraham also died. The appellant further stated that the deceased was driving the car only out of friendship and there was no employer– employee relationship.

6. During the trial before the learned Commissioner, the 1^st respondent was examined as AW1. Another witness was examined on the side of the applicants as AW2. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on their side. The 4^th respondent was examined as RW1 and his brother was examined as RW2. A Sub Inspector of Police who conducted the inquest of the deceased was examined as RW3. Exts.R1 to R6 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

7. On conclusion of evidence, the learned Commissioner heard the parties and passed the impugned order. The learned Commissioner concluded that there was employer-employee relationship and the deceased met with the accident out of his employment and also during the course of employment. The Commissioner granted an amount of Rs.5,70,720/- as compensation along with simple interest @ 12% from the date of accident till the date of payment. An amount of Rs.1,141/- was granted as cost. Towards funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- was granted. As insurance coverage was admitted, the appellant was directed to deposit the amounts awarded.

8. The appellant thereafter filed this appeal raising the following questions of law:

“i) Whether the Commissioner for Employees Compensation Court was correct in finding that there is employee-employer relationship between Late Vijayakumar and the 4th respondent/1st opposite party?

ii) Whether the court below was correct in finding that the evidence adduced by the respondents 1 to 3/applicants is more believable than the case of the 4th respondent/1st opposite party when the evidence in the case is taken as a whole?

Iii) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was correct in making the appellant (insurance company) liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per