HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 639 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is directed against the order dated 01.12.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle 1, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in WC No. 22 of 2001 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09.07.2001 when the claimant during the course of employment, was proceeding on the jeep bearing registration No. AP 9V 7545 belonging to the first respondent insured with the second respondent, towards Kulkacherla from Pargi, the jeep fell down in a ditch after collision with a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. As a result of which, the claimant received grievous injures all over his body. Both the respondents filed their counters separately denying the allegations made in the petition. 2. The Commissioner dismissed the application holding that the applicant was not being the employee-workman of the first respondent on 9.7.2001 therefore; he is not entitled to compensation from the second respondent- Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant – appellant 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Court below ought to have seen that oral and documentary evidence viz., Exs A1 to A11, which clearly establishes that the appellant suffered grievous permanent disability in the accident during the course of employment under first respondent. He also submits that the second respondent-Insurance Company either impeached or rebutted the evidence of the appellant, therefore, the finding of the Court below is based on assumptions and presumptions and the Tribunal ought to have determined the compensation as per Section 3 of the WC Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for first respondent submits that the FIR does not contain the name and no evidence was adduced on behalf of the insurance company and therefore, the Commissioner rightly dismissed the petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred during the course of employment when the claimant proceeding towards Kulkacherla from Pargi as driver on the Jeep bearing registration No. AP 9V 7545, it fell down in a ditch after collision with a vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The Commissioner taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the application. When once the counter is filed and it establishes the fact that the claimant is employed with the employer as driver of the Jeep, the Tribunal ought to have considered the case of the claimant by granting reasonable compensation. In RANGA COTTON GINNING MILLS VS. GINJUPALLI RATNA KUMARI AND ANOTEHR[1] this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in MACKINNON MACKENZIE AND CO. PVT LTD VS. IBRAHIM MAHMOOD ISSAK (1969 ACJ 422) at paragraph 8 observed as under: “ 8. In the light of the jurisprudential robe and the commandment of the powers of the Commissioner being such an authority, the question arises as to how the evidence in the case has to be considered or appreciated by such an authority, when particularly strict rules of evidence or Evidence Act are not applicable. The Supreme Court in a decision rendered by three judges in MACKINNON MACKENZIE AND CO. PVT LIMITED VS. IBRAHIM MOHAMOOD ISSAK, 1969 ACJ 422 had an occasion to deal with the question strictly arising under Section 3 of the Act, where the question whether an accident arose out of and in the course of the employment under Section 3 of the Act was considered to hold that the burden rests upon the workman to prove it and the Commissioner can draw inferences from proved facts, but he should not base his findings merely on surmises or conjectures. The elaboration of the rest is found in para 6 as follows: “In a case of death caused by accident the burden of proof rests upon the workman to prove that the accident arose out of employment as well as in the course of employment. But this does not mean that a workman who comes to Court for relief must necessarily prove it by direct evidence. Although the onus of proving that the injury by accident arose both out of and in the course of employment rests upon the applicant these essentials may be inferred when the facts proved justify the inference. On the one hand the Commissioner must not surmise, conjecture or guess, on the other hand he may draw an inference from the proved facts so long as it is a legitimate inference. It is of course impossible to lay down any rule as to the degree of proof which is sufficient to justify an inference being draw, but the evidence must be such as would induce a reasonable man to draw it.” 7. Following the above judgment of the Supreme Court and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2400/- is taken as earnings of the claimant. The relevant factor to be applied in this case is 221.37. After applying the relevant factor the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 95,631.84 (2,400 x 60/100 x 30/100 x 221.37 = 95,631.84). 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed awarding Rs. 95,631.84/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the Appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 03.2.2011 KA [1] 1997 (4) ALD 383