Advocates:
['m/s n b surekha', '', 'M B CHAITHANYA', 'M/S SP YUARAJ', '', 'K PREMNATH', 'FOR R', 'R - PERSON NOT FOUND', 'NOT READY IN NOTICE REG R']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 20.01.2021

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 25.01.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.M.A.No.983 of 2013

M/s.National Insurance Corporation Ltd.,

Division Officer – 1,

2^nd floor, Saradha College Road,

Salem-7.

.. Appellant/

2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1.K.Chandrasekeran

.. Respondent/

Petitioner

2.A.Kumaresan

.. Respondent/

1^st Respondent

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30

of the Workmen Compensation Act, to set aside the order passed

in W.C.No.750 of 2005 dated 31.05.2012 on the file of the

learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Deputy

Commissioner of Labour, Salem).

For Appellant : Mr.M.L. Ramesh

for Mr.N.B.Surekha

For Respondents

For R1

: Mr.S.P.Yuaraj

For R2

: Ex-parte

J U D G M E N T

The appellant herein is the second respondent in W.C.No.750

of 2005 filed by the first respondent herein / injured, claiming

compensation for grievous injuries sustained by him, due to the

accident happened on 29.01.2005, while he was driving an auto

belongs to the second respondent herein / owner, under whom he

was employed.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. After full trial, the learned Commissioner for Workmen

Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem) awarded a

compensation a sum of Rs.83,641/- in favour of the first

respondent/ injured. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant /

insurance company preferred this appeal. R1 represented through

his counsel and R2 remained ex-parte.

3.

As per the contention of the appellant, on the date of

the accident, the first respondent / injured was not employed

under the second respondent herein / owner, though the auto

bearing Reg. No.TN 58.6226 belongs to the second respondent.

Further, he contended that there is a lessee and lessor

relationship between the first respondent and the second

respondent and there is no employer and employee relationship

between them, and the auto was driven by the injured for rent.

4.

But the learned counsel for the first respondent /

injured submitted that the said auto belongs to the second

respondent and on the date of the accident the first respondent

driven the vehicle as driver under the second respondent,

thereby he denied the lessor and lessee relationship between

them.

5.

On a perusal of the records, it reveals that, Ex.P3 -

Auto belongs to the second respondent herein and insured with

the appellant's company on the date of the accident. The

appellant also admits that the vehicle was also insured with

them but denied the relationship between the injured and owner

as employer and employee. As rightly pointed out by the first

respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle remained as ex-parte

in the entire proceedings. He has not appeared nor he produced

any evidence to disprove the first respondent's contention.

Thereby, he impliedly admits the relationship between the first

and the second respondent as employer and employee. Therefore,

eventhough no evidence was adduced on the side of the injured to

prove his fact, but the conduct of the second respondent

supports the contention of the injured.

6.

Further, on the side of the appellant, there is no

material evidence adduced took established lessor and lessee

relationship between the first and the second respondent herein.

Therefore, the objection raised by the appellant that there is

no employer and employee relationship between the first and the

second respondent herein is unsustainable one. The findings to

that effect by the Tribunal are also a sustainable one. The

appellant also contended that the injured was not possessed

badge to drive the auto and he obtained licence only to drive

the LM