PATHUKUTTY M. Vs. ABDURAHIMAN V.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the applicants in W.C.C.No.50/2009 on the files of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Palakkad. They are the mother and brother of the deceased V.P.Irshad, who died in a motor traffic accident. The aforesaid application was filed under Sec. 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, seeking an order directing the 2nd respondent/insurer herein to pay compensation to the appellants for the death of the deceased.

(2.) The case of the appellants is that the deceased V.P.Irshad was a workman employed by the 1st respondent as driver in his Tavera Turbo Car. On 10.7.2007 while the deceased was driving the above said car from Kottukara to Coimbatore, when the car reached at Kothagiri- Mettupalayam road, suddenly a bison crossed the road, and he could not turn the vehicle; but he applied the brake suddenly. Consequently, Irshad lost his control over the vehicle and it fell down from the road and he suffered severe injury on his head and died at the spot. The monthly wages of the deceased was Rs.6,000.00 and he was aged 22 years at the time of the accident. At the time of accident, the vehicle had insurance coverage under the policy issued to the 1st respondent, by the 2nd respondent. The appellants claimed a lumpsum of Rs.8 lakhs as compensation from the 2nd respondent.

(3.) The 2nd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the coverage of insurance policy, but denied the employer-M. employee relationship between the 1st respondent and the deceased. The deceased Irshad is the son of 1st respondent/owner. So he was not paid any wages by the 1st respondent. Since there was no employer employee relationship, 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent.