Judgment : 1. The appellant / second opposite party has preferred the present appeal, against the Order dated 17.12.2007, made in W.C.No.232 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-2) at Chennai. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The applicant namely A.Palani was travelling along with three loadmen on the lorry bearing registration No.TN09 F1159, on 02.04.2006, at about 09.00 hours on the E.C.R. Road, Chennai and at that point of time, the driver of the lorry had driven the vehicle in a negligent manner and dashed against an electric post. As a result, all the four loadmen had sustained injuries, including the applicant. Hence, the compensation petition has been filed against the employer and Insurance Company. 3. The Insurance Company had filed their counter statement and resisted the compensation petition and denied the averments regarding age, income and occupation of the applicant. Further, they have denied that employer-employee relationship existed between the first opposite party and the applicant. Further, the Insurance Company had denied the averments that their company had insured the lorry. It was also submitted that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving licence and it was further submitted that as per FIR the applicant had travelled as a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the claim petition made by the applicant. 4. On considering the averments of both sides, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had framed five issues namely: i. Whether the applicant had sustained injuries in the accident arising out of and during the course of employment under the first opposite party? ii. What is the age and salary of the applicant? iii. What is the loss of earning capacity? iv. To what relief the applicant is entitled to get? and v. Who is liable to pay compensation? 5. On the applicant's side, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and twelve documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12 namely discharge medical summary, X'rays, FIR, Policy copy, M.V.I's report, Driving Licence, Photo with Negatives, RC Book, X'ray and Disability Certificate. On the opposite parties' side, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 and Ex.R4 namely Own Damage Claim, Notice to first opposite party, Notice to second opposite party and Authorization letter. 6. On the opposite parties' side, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 and Ex.R4 namely Own Damage Claim, Notice to first opposite party, Notice to second opposite party and Authorization letter. 6. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he was a loadman under the first opposite party in the lorry bearing registration No.TN09 F1159 and he was paid a salary of Rs.3,700/-per month and a daily batta of Rs.30/-. On 02.04.2006, at about 09.00 a.m., when he was returning to Chennai, after unloading the goods at Mahabalipuram, the driver of the lorry had suddenly turned the vehicle to the left side, in order to avoid collusion with an oncoming van. As a result, the lorry had dashed against an electric post. He further stated that he had sustained injuries on his right hand and head and he had been hospitalized from 02.04.2006 to 14.04.2006 and again from 09.05.2006 to 17.05.2006, as an inpatient at Government General Hospital, Chennai. 7. P.W.2 Doctor had adduced evidence that a skin grafting surgery was conducted on the right hand of the applicant and he had assessed the disability at 35%. 8. P.W.3 another Doctor had adduced evidence that the applicant's skull bone was fractured and the fractured bone had pierced the brain and a piece of bone had been displaced. The Doctor had assessed the disability at 60%. 9. R.W.1 had adduced evidence that he was a Supervisor under the first opposite party and that Dharman, P.Palani, Panchaksharam and A.Palani were employed under the first opposite party as loadmen. All the loadmen were paid salary and daily batta. 10. R.W.2 had adduced evidence that the first opposite party had insured his vehicle under the category of own damage claim. The driver of the lorry alone was an employee under the first opposite party and the applicant was not an employee under the first opposite party. The policy extends coverage of insurance for seven employees. 11. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by both sides, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II had awarded a sum of Rs.3,36,076/- (3689 x 60/100 x 216.91 x 70/100) as compensation to the applicant. 12. Against the said Award, the second opposite party Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 13. 11. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by both sides, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II had awarded a sum of Rs.3,36,076/- (3689 x 60/100 x 216.91 x 70/100) as compensation to the applicant. 12. Against the said Award, the second opposite party Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 13. The highly competent counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company has argued that the applicant was travelling as an unauthorised passenger and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The FIR ingredients did not disclose that the applicant was a loadman. The evidence of R.W.1, who is an interested witness, cannot be relied on. Therefore, the Insurance Company shall be exonerated from the liability. Both the Doctors had assessed the disability, which is on the higher side. 14. The very competent counsel for the applicant has submitted that R.W.1, who was the supervisor of the first opposite party had adduced evidence that the applicant was a loadman under the first opposite party and they have been paid salary besides daily batta. The first opposite party had paid premium for extending coverage of insurance for seven employees. The applicant had sustained grievous injuries on his skull and a skin grafting surgery was conducted. Considering the employer-employee relationship, nature of injuries and age, the compensation amount had been assessed after framing five issues. As such, there is no lacuna in the impugned award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. 15. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court does not find any short comings in the conclusions arrived at regarding negligence, liability and that the accident had arisen out of and during the course of employment under the first opposite party. The quantum of compensation had also been assessed on the basis of age, salary and disability percentage in an appropriate manner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above appeal. Therefore, the impugned Award is liable to be confirmed. 16. As per records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount is deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above appeal. Therefore, the impugned Award is liable to be confirmed. 16. As per records, it is seen that the entire compensation amount is deposited before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Now, the applicant is at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount, with accrued interest thereon, if any, lying in the credit of W.C.No.232 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-2) at Chennai, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order and after identification of the applicant by his counsel. 17. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the Order dated 17.12.2007, made in W.C.No.232 of 2006, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-2) at Chennai, is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.