ULAHANNAN MATHEW Vs. V H MOHAMMED HAMSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants are the appellants. THEy are the father and mother respectively of a person who suffered injuries in a motor accident which took place on 8/5/2006 and succumbed to those injuries later on 22/5/2006. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was employed as a Cleaner in the lorry. While he was attending to the work as a Cleaner outside the vehicle, the driver of the lorry negligently took the lorry forward leading to fall of a log of wood from the lorry which fell on the deceased leading to his injuries and subsequent death. Compensation was claimed against the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle. Respondents 1 and 2 i.e., the owner and driver of the vehicle respectively did not appear and resist the claim. THE 3rd respondent/insurer resisted the claim. Inter alia, it was contended that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the lorry. It was conceded that the vehicle was covered by a comprehensive policy of insurance. However, the insurer claimed absolution from liability on the plea that the deceased was the owner at the relevant time as also the driver.

(2.) PARTIES went to trial on these contentions. The Tribunal in the impugned award came to the conclusion that the deceased was not the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal found that the liability in respect of the deceased was covered by the policy of insurance; but proceeded to hold that inasmuch as the insurer is not shown to have kept the relevant employment records showing that the deceased was an employee of the insured, there was violation of conditions in IMT 39 by the insured/owner. Consequently, it was found that the insurer is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. The award directed the owner and driver of the vehicle to satisfy the direction to pay the compensation.Compensation was fixed at Rs. .4,31,400/- along with costs of Rs. .6,450/-. Interest at the rate of 9% per annum was ordered from 1/1/07 till the realisation.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred grossly in coming to the conclusion that the insurance company can claim absolution from liability on the ground that the conditions in IMT 39 of the policy of insurance have not been complied with. THE Tribunal had taken the view that the employer had not maintained records/registers showing the details of the employees as insisted by the said conditions in IMT 39.