UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ELATTUPARAMBIL ABDURAHIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second opposite party in ECC No.343/2014 (old No.82/2008) on the files of the Court of Employees Compensation Commissioner, Palakkad is the appellant herein. On 20/7/2018, the learned Compensation Commissioner passed the impugned order directing the second opposite party (Insurance Company) to pay compensation Rs.2,74,938.00 with interest @ 12% per annum, and an amount of Rs.2,500.00 as the funeral expenses of one Firoz Babu, the son of applicants 1 and 2 and the brother of the applicant No.3 before the said court. The applicants 1 to 3 before the Trial Court are the respondents 1 to 3, and the first opposite party before the Trial Court is the fourth respondent, in this appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the second respondent died. The additional fifth respondent has been impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased second respondent.

(2.) In the application filed before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, the applicants contended that the above said Firoz Babu, a Sales Representative employed by the first opposite party, met with death during the course of employment on 30/6/2001 in an accident while riding a motorcycle owned by the first opposite party. Claiming that the deceased was earning a monthly wages of Rs.2,500.00 at the age of 22 years, the applicants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000.00. The first opposite party denied the employer-employee relationship with the deceased. However, it was admitted by the first opposite party that the motorcycle involved in the accident earlier belonged to him and that it was duly insured with the second opposite party. The above motorcycle, according to the first opposite party, was sold to the deceased on 15/4/2001. It was the further contention of the first opposite party that he had entrusted the relevant papers to the deceased for the transfer of ownership, but he failed to do the needful in that regard. The second opposite party contended that they were not in a position to trace out the insurance policy of the vehicle involved in the accident since the insurance cover note produced by the applicant did not contain the vehicle number, engine number or chassis number. Thus, it is contended by the second opposite party that they did not issue an insurance policy for the vehicle with number KL-10 L 2399 which was involved in the accident. The second opposite party also disputed the status of the deceased as the employee of the first opposite party.

(3.) Before the Employees Compensation Commissioner, the first applicant was examined as AW1 and eight documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. The first opposite party was examined as RW1. The Development Officer of the second opposite party was examined as RW2 and the Joint R.T.O, Malappuram was examined as RW3. Four documents were marked from the part of the opposite parties as Exts.B1 to B4. The vakalath executed by RW1 on 20/3/2003 was marked as Ext.C1.