RAJAMMAL R Vs. YELLOW HAMMER ACCESSORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second petitioner before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, in W.C. No. 121 of 1997 against the dismissal of the said petition for compensation has filed the above appeal before this Court.

(2.) In respect of death of one Jagadeswaran in a motor vehicle accident, the appellant herein along with her husband T.P. Rathinasamy filed W.C. No. 121 of 1997, before the said authority claiming compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs. The said petition was resisted by the respondents stating that the deceased was not a workman as defined under Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the first claimant being employed and earning, both of them are not dependents; accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. In support of their claim, the first claimant, father of the deceased was examined as P.W. 1, and 2 more persons as P.Ws. 3 and 4 were also examined, apart from marking exhibits A-l to A-8. On the other hand, on the side of the first respondent herein, one S. Rajendran was examined as R.W.-1 and on behalf of the second respondent-insurance company, none was examined nor any document marked. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation after considering the oral and documentary evidence, and after holding that the deceased being a sales engineer and not a workman under Section 2(1)(n) of the said Act and in view of the fact that the claimants are not dependents as per Section 2(1) (d) of the said Act, dismissed the said petition as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order, the mother of the deceased alone filed the present appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents.

(3.) It is the definite case of the appellant that her son Jagadeswaran who was employed as a production-cum-sales engineer in the first respondent's concern, on March 21, 1997, while on his way from Suriya Mill, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore, to his factory in a Hero Honda Motor Cycle T.N. 37-J-0791 owned by the first respondent herein along with one S. Krishnan met with an accident, opposite to Goundampalayam Auto Stand by dashing behind a lorry which suddenly stopped, due to which he sustained head injury. He underwent treatment at C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore and then at Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry, where he died. According to her, the deceased was paid wages at Rs. 2,400 per month. On the other hand, it is the case of the first respondent that the deceased was not a workman in terms of Section 2(1)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and not covered under Schedule II to the said Act. He was only a sales engineer and he is not a workman and he cannot claim compensation under the said Act. Even otherwise, according to them, the accident took place beyond his working hours, i.e. at 10.00 p.m. whereas his working hours came to an end at 5.30 P.m. Hence, the accident did not arise in the course of his employment. It is also their case that inasmuch as the first claimant is employed as a Livestock Inspector at Veterinary Hospital, Thingalur and earning Rs. 6,000 per month, he cannot be said to be wholly or partly dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. The income of the deceased was hardly sufficient to maintain himself. It is the case of the second respondent herein that the employer of the deceased had not paid premium covering the risk of a rider other than the owner of the vehicle. Now, the point for consideration is whether the deceased Jagadeswaran was a workman as defined under Section 2(l)(n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the appellant is a dependent as per Section 2(1)(d) of Act.