INDERJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 03.10.2011 passed by Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Jaipur-II, Jaipur in Case No.WCCNF/485/2010.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1-claimant filed a claim petition for compensation with the averments that on 10.08.2008 claimant-respondent No. 1 was working under the course of employment of respondent No. 2 as workman on Vehicle No.RJ-21-GA-1339 as Khallasi. It was submitted that respondent-claimant No. 1 sustained injuries when he was hit by a Trailor No.PV-46-E-9651 while he was checking the vehicle on road side resulting into fracture in both legs due to which he became permanently disabled. It was further submitted that the claimant at the time of 25 years of age and was earning Rs. 6,500/- per month. Thus, claimed Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation from the non-claimants. The appellant-insurance company submitted reply to the claim petition with the averments that the appellant-insurance company has not covered the risk of Khallasi as no premium has been charged for Khallasi. Further, the claimant was not working under the employment of respondent No. 2-Rameshwar Lal and he was not sustained injuries arising out of the accident and in the course of his employment. There is no master and servant relationship between them. Objection regarding violation of policy conditions was also taken. The Commissioner Workmen's Compensation vide order dated 03.10.2011 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,06,069/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 10.08.2008.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, Issue No. 1 has wrongly decided by the Commissioner. Counsel further submits that the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation has wrongly decided issue No. 2 because the doctor has issued permanent disability certificate in favour of the claimant for 26.88% whereas the Commissioner has considered the professional disability to the tune of 40% while assessing the compensation.;