Secretary, Cannanore Cooperative Autorikshaw Drivers Society vs Santosh and Others

Balakrishnan, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment in W.C.C. No. 153/93 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Kannur. The applicant was the first respondent in the proceedings. The appellant - Cooperative Society used to give financial assistance to the persons for the purchase of autorikshaws on hire purchase agreement. The third respondent, thus, obtained an autorikshaw and the autorikshaw was being driven by the claimant. On April 8, 1993 this autorikshaw met with an accident and the claimant sustained injuries and he claimed a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- as compensation.

The appellant herein contended that he was not the principal employer and that the appellant - Society had only given finance to the third respondent to purchase the autorikshaw and, therefore, there is no liability on the part of the appellant. He also contended that the insurance policy was taken by the society and, therefore, the second respondent - Insurance Company was liable to pay the amount.

The Tribunal held that the appellant herein was the principal employer and he was liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,940/-. As the appellant has not produced the documents relating to insurance, second respondent - Insurance company was not held liable.

We heard the appellant''s counsel. The main contention urged by the appellant''s counsel is that appellant - Society is not the owner of the autorikshaw and, therefore, there cannot be any liability on the part of the appellant. Admittedly, the autorikshaw was given to the third respondent under a hire purchase agreement and the third respondent has been paying the hire amount in instalments. As the third respondent is only a hirer, he cannot be said to be the owner of the vehicle. As it is admitted by the appellant that the autorikshaw was given on hire purchase agreement, under law, the appellant is the owner of the vehicle. Moreover, the vehicle itself is admittedly registered only in the name of the appellant - society and he also obtained an insurance in the name of the appellant - society in respect of the vehicle.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per the provisions of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, the appellant cannot be considered as a principal employer and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on the appellant. This contention also cannot be accepted. The appellant is the owner of the vehicle by virtue of the hire purchase agreement and until and unless the full hire amount is paid by the third respondent, the appellant will continue to be the owner of the vehicle. The third respondent is only an agent who has been given de facto possession of the vehicle. The legal possession of the vehicle is always with the owner-the appellant society. Even if the driver was appointed by the third respondent, it can only be assumed that hirer acted as an agent of the present appellant. In that way the appellant is the principal employer so far as the claimant - driver is concerned. Moreover, the amount now awarded by the Commissioner is only Rs. 2,940/-. We are not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Commissioner.

The Appeal is without any merit and it is dismissed.