THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MD. AMERUDDIN, S/O LATE JAMARUDDIN OF SORA MANING LEIKAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri A. Deni Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Shri S. Jibon, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and none is present for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the award dated 22-12-2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Manipur in Claim Case No. 15 of 2006 by which the respondent No. 2 was held liable under Sec. 3(1) of the Act to pay compensation for the personal injury to the respondent No. 1; the appellant was further held liable to indemnify the respondent No. 2 and accordingly, the appellant was directed to deposit the amount of compensation for a sum of Rs. 4,14,048.00 (Rupees four lakhs fourteen thousand and forty eight) only on or before 31-01-2008 failing which with its simple interest @ 12 percent per annum.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 was a Driver by occupation employed by the respondent No. 2, a registered owner of the vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing registration No. MN04/5433 and he was receiving the monthly wages @ Rs. 6400.00 per month. The appellant was the insurer of the respondent No. 2 under Sec. 147(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 during the period from 08-04-2002 to 07-04-200 An accident took place on 11-04-2002 wherein the respondent No. 1 sustained injury, because of which he filed a claim before the Presiding Officer, Manipur Accident Claim Tribunal, Manipur which he withdrew on 26-05-2006 with the permission of the Presiding Officer allowing him for filing a fresh claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The respondent No. 1 adduced oral evidence in support of his claim that he was a Driver employed by the respondent No. 2 and the occurrence of the accident was not disputed by the respondent No. 2 except challenging the amount of compensation claimed by the respondent No. 1. After having considered the records and arguments of the parties, the learned Commissioner held that the respondent No. 1 was a workman as defined under Sec. 2(l)(n) of the said Act read with Item (i) of the Schedule II of the said Act and that the accident to the respondent No. 1 occurred during the course of the respondent No. 1's employment by the respondent No. 2.