UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. KOMALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited disputing their liability of compensating the legal heirs of the deceased on the ground that the vehicle insured was not involved in the accident and that the application preferred by the claimants before the Tribunal was not in accordance with S.22(2)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2.) APPLICATION was preferred under S.22 of the Act before the Commissioner claiming compensation for the fatal accident caused to deceased Sivan alias Sivasankaran alleged to be during the course of his employment. Claimants submit that deceased Sivan was a headload worker of the first respondent by name Saidalavi and that while he was loading timber in a lorry bearing registration No KL-9D/576 belonged to Saidalavi on 04/04/1998 sustained serious injuries due to the fall of timber on his body and he succumbed to the injuries. It was stated that the deceased was getting wages of Rs.4,000/- and that he was aged 30 years at the time of accident. Further it is also stated that the vehicle was insured with the third opposite party.

(3.) WE may at the outset point out that though the accident had occurred on 04/04/1998 application claiming compensation under S.22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was preferred on 24/12/2004 with a petition for condonation of delay. Delay of more than six years was condoned by the Commissioner without issuing notice to the third opposite party with whom lorry KL-9D/576 was insured. Further, no acceptable evidence was adduced by the claimant to show involvement of the lorry KL-9D/576 in the accident occurred on 04/04/1998. No evidence was adduced to show that deceased Sivan was the employee of Saidalavi, owner of the lorry. On the death of the deceased a case was registered by the police and FI statement was given by one Abdulla who was with the deceased while loading the timber. FI statement submitted by the police which was marked as Ext. A1 in Crime No 138/98 and stated as follows: There is no reference whatsoever with regard to the involvement of the lorry bearing registration number KL-9D/576 in the FI statement. No materials have been produced to show that Sivan was an employee of Saidalavi, owner of the lorry, Ext. A2 is the scene mahazar in which also there was no reference whatsoever to the lorry in question. After a period of more than six years claim petition was preferred. For the first time it is stated in the claim petition that the accident had occurred while loading the timber in a lorry KL-9D/576 and that too during the course of employment and that the deceased was the employee of Saidalavi, owner of the lorry. We have therefore no hesitation to state that the present application is an afterthought and filed perhaps in collusion with the first opposite party Saidalavi who remained ex parte. Claimants somehow or other wanted to rope in the Insurance Company, so that the amount could be recovered from the Insurance Company. We may in this connection refer to S.22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which reads as follows: