MFA No. 124 of 2010 · Kerala High Court

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.---------------------------------------------M.F.A.(W.C.C.)No.124 of 2010----------------------------------------------Dated this the 05th day of July, 2012JUDGMENTThottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respective learned counsel for the respondents in this appeal against an award passed under the Workmen's CompensationAct, 1923. Parties are referred to hereunder, by their status before the Commissioner.

This appeal is by the insurer of a vehicle belonging to the first respondent who, a timber merchant, was delivering timber in the premises of the 3rd respondent, a saw mill owner. The testimony of the son of the 3rd respondent is that the deceased Thulasidas is among those who come with the other head load workers when lorry loads come and the lorry loads are unloaded by those workmen on behalf of the supplier. While the insurer says that the unloading has been done in the premises of the 3rd respondent, the buyer, we are inclined to think that the findings of the Commissioner rendered on appreciation of facts do not generate a substantial question of law for interference at M.F.A.(W.C.C.)No.124/20102our hands in this appeal. We say so, because the learnedCommissioner has adverted to the material evidence on record. We may also indicate that in terms of Sale of Goods Act, delivery of goods would be the responsibility of the seller unless there isa contract to the contrary. On the totality of the facts and circumstances, without any further evidence being adduced or called for by the appealing insurer, in the course of the proceedings before the Commissioner, we do not find any ground to interfere with the finding by the Commissioner on the question of employer-employee relationship. That ground hence fails.