- (1.) THE appellant / claimant has preferred the present appeal, to set- aside the order passed in W.C.No.250 of 2007, on the file of learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Dindigul.
(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner has filed the claim in W.C.No.250 of 2007, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in an accident arising out of and in the course of employment under the first respondent. It was submitted that the petitioner was employed as the driver of the first respondent's 'Tata 709' lorry bearing registration No.TN-63-Z-2718 and that he was getting a daily income of Rs.200/-. It was submitted that on 29.05.2007, when the petitioner was driving the said lorry on the Dindigul to Mettupalayam road and when the lorry was proceeding near Mettupalayam Bridge, he had swerved the lorry towards the left side of the road in order not to collide with a vehicle coming on the opposite side and had applied the brakes. But as the brake had not functioned properly, the petitioner had driven the lorry against a tree near the side of the road. In the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries on his left eye and on the other parts of his body. The petitioner took initial treatment at the Eye Foundation Hospital and later was referred to Madurai Aravind Hospital on 30.05.2007. It was submitted that even after treatment, the petitioner's eye sight has not been set right and he is able to do his daily duties only with the support of other persons. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 24 years. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim against the first and second respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No..TN-63-Z-2718. The second respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the petitioner, nature of injuries sustained, medical treatment taken as well as disability sustained by him. It was submitted that there was no employer-employee relationship between the first respondent and the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner had mentioned in his claim petition that he was working as a cleaner of the first respondent's lorry and the contradictory statements had been made in the claim regarding occupation. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.
(3.) ON the petitioner's side, the petitioner, viz., N.Jaiganesh was examined as P.W.1 and nine documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9, viz., Ex.P1- F.I.R., Ex.P2-Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, Ex.P3-X-rays, Ex.P4-C.T.Scan report, Ex.P5-discharge summary, Ex.P6-driving licence, Ex.P7-insurance policy, Ex.P8-case summary. One Dr.Ranjan Babu was examined as P.W.2 and he had marked Ex.P9, the disability certificate. On the second respondent's side, no witness was examined and no document was marked.;