THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.355 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order

dated 13.09.2007 passed in W.C.No.71 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant

Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda (for short ‘the Commissioner’).

2. Heard Mr. Mohammad Nabeel Ali, learned amicus for

appellant-Insurance Company and none appears for respondents.

3. On 21.03.2025, none appeared for appellant, on 27.03.2025, none appeared for appellant. Again when the matter was posted on 01.04.2025, none appeared for appellant, hence, the matter was posted under the caption for dismissal. On 02.05.2025, none appeared for appellants. On 27.06.2025, this Court deemed it appropriate to appoint Mr. Mohd. Nabeel Ali, a young budding

lawyer, as amicus to assist the Court.

4. Applicant was a driver on a lorry bearing No.AHJ 9637. On 26.10.2004 at about 03:00 A.M., when the vehicle reached near Bihar Hotel, Ulavapadu, applicant dashed another lorry bearing

No.AP 26 U 4545, coming in opposite direction from Vijayawada. Applicant sustained grievous injuries, was admitted in the local Government hospital and thereafter, shifted to a private hospital, where he took treatment for one month. A case in Crime No.86 of 2004, came to be registered under Section 337 of IPC, at the Police Station of Ulavapadu.

5. Applicant claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 i.e., Insurance Company and Owner. Commissioner after considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 (for applicant), RW1 (for Opposite Party-Insurance Company), Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.B1 to B4 which were marked, awarded an amount of Rs.2,20,955/- as compensation, to be paid within 30 days, from the date of receipt of copy of the order by both Opposite Parties jointly and severally. This award came to be passed in W.C.No.71 of 2005 by the Commissioner on 13.09.2007, which is under challenge in this CMA.

6. Learned counsel for appellant-Insurance Company (Amicus) submitted that applicant suffered accident while the lorry was being driven towards Ongole. That he was initially treated in Government hospital, later in a private hospital, that the Commissioner erred in awarding the compensation. It is further submitted that the applicant was unable to prove employer employee relationship. It is also submitted that neither any appointment letter nor any pay slip is produced by the applicant to establish the employer employee relationship.

7. It is submitted that license of the applicant expired at the time of accident and it was renewed after the accident. It is further submitted that the date of accident is 26.10.2004, the renewal of the license was from 26.11.2004. It is also submitted that the same clearly establishes the fact that applicant was not holding a heavy goods license as on the date of accident. It is pointed out that driving license issued for first time was to drive transport vehicles of light motor vehicles later converted into Heavy Goods Vehicle (Transport). It is submitted that PW2 i.e., doctor was examined after 16 months of the accident, the certificate of disability was issued without any test being conducted. It is further submitted that applicant had to prove that the injury was during the course of employment and for such lapses on the part of applicant, the Commissioner could not have awarded the compensation. That awarding of compensation is invalid and not proper.

8. Learned counsel for appellant relied on the judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai v. Saraswathi & others, 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 100. Placing reliance on Paragraph Nos.11 to 14 of the judgment, it is submitted that documentary proof is required to establish employer employee relationship. At Paragraph No.5, it is recorded that deceased in the said case was aged 62 years and that there was no probability of serving