NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SHIMOGA ROAD HARIHAR TOWN, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, REP BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 72, 2ND FLOOR, MISSION ROAD UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, BANGALORE - 560027, REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER Vs. SMT. NIRMALAMMA AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent insurance company in CR. Nos. 119 and 133/1998 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chitradurga has come up in these two appeals challenging the common order dated 24.5.2003 passed in the aforesaid proceedings.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to these appeals are: CR. No. 119/98 is filed by the widow and minor daughter of deceased Jagadeesh and CR. No. 133/98 is filed by the widow and children of deceased Govindaraju. The case of claimants is that deceased Jagadeesh and Govindaraju were working as coolies under 1st respondent owner of tractor trailer bearing Engine No. 352:4049, 3522, Chassis No. KTC/8:97 No. 313 insured with - 2nd respondent/insurance company. On 5.9.1997 the deceased in the course of their employment under 1st respondent were travelling in the said vehicle to bring fertilizer from Chitradurga to Lakshmi sagar. The said tractor trailer met with an accident resulting in the death of Jagadeesh and Govindaraju Hence, their legal heirs filed claim petitions before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chitradurga.

(3.) THE 2nd respondent Insurance Company being aggrieved by the same has come up in these appeals on the ground that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased persons and 1st respondent. It is only the tractor belonging to 1st respondent was insured and trailer was not insured. Further, the tractor was also not having permanent registration number and the temporary registration number granted had expired as on the date of accident. At the relevant time the said tractor trailer was used by 1st respondent Revanna for a family function in his name. Though deceased Jagadeesh is son of 1st respondent, owner of tractor trailer, the same is suppressed. So far as deceased Govindaraju though he was a barber by profession, he is wrongly shown as coolie. The fact that he was traveling in the said tractor for the purpose of tonsuring the head of 1st respondent's grand son, is suppressed and he is shown as coolie and his claim for compensation as employee of 1st respondent is allowed.