IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 MFA.No. 94 of 2005(A) ------------------------ WCC.1/2000 of W.C.C., KANNUR .................... APPELLANT/4TH OPPOSITE PARTY: ---------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ASST. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT & OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 TO 3 : ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KUMARAN, S/O.KANNAN, KADUMANA, P.O.KARADKA, KASARGODE. 2. NAJEERA AHMED, M/S.SIRAJ TIMBERS, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. RAFEEQ AHAMED, M/S.SIRAJ TIMBERS, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. HAMSA, DRIVER, M/S.SIRAJ TIMBERS, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R2 SRI.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. No.1654 OF 2005 IN M.F.A. NO. 94 OF 2005 DISMISSED 26/8/08 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. [ True Copy ] P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO. 94 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kannur in W.C.C.1/00. The claimant, according to the petition filed by him, was a workman employed as a loading worker under the opposite party II namely owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and therefore he filed the application as an employment injury and claimed compensation from the insurance company but when examined as the witness he would categorically assert that he was working under the first opposite party who was an independent contractor and who has nothing to do with the lorry. In spite of the same the Tribunal granted an order and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. Therefore the whole approach of the Court below is erroneous which is liable to be set aside. I do not want to elaborate further for the reason that let the matter be reconsidered again by the Compensation MFA 94 OF 2005 -:2:- Commissioner after hearing all concerned and the entitlement. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back and the Compensation Commissioner is directed to give an opportunity to all parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. It is further made clear that the amount deposited will lie in deposit till a final decision is taken in the matter. The Compensation Commissioner shall issue notice to the parties fixing the date of hearing. The appeal is disposed of as above. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-