NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED CHENNAI Vs. P THALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is The case of The Respondents/Claimants that The deceased was employed by The Fifth Respondent herein, M. Far Constructions Private Limited, Chennai as a Coolie. On 13.4.2006, at about 10.30 hours, when he was unloading The sand bags from The fourth floor, he fell down through The gap in between The hoist unloading ramp and scaffolding pipe to The ground floor at The project site of "The Pacific City" at Chennai, under The sub contract of Mr. G. Appanna, who was engaged by The first opposite party. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and was immediately rushed to Government General Hospital, Chennai for treatment. But he died on The same day.

(2.) A case was registered in T-4, Madhuravayal Police Station, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai vide FIR No.613 of 2006, dated 13.4.2006. Wife and children claimed compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The Appellant/Insurance Company denied The manner of accident and its liability. It was further contended that The accident occurred purely due to The negligence of The deceased, that he did not wear safety gadgets like helmet and safety belt, disobeying The orders of his employer and The rules and conditions. It was further contended that on The fateful day, 87 workers were engaged in The construction work, whereas The Fifth Respondent/first opposite party had taken an Insurance Policy which covers only 15 workers, resulting in violation of The Policy condition. The Appellant contended that they cannot be mulcted with The liability to pay compensation. The First Respondent, wife was examined as CW.1 and she reiterated The averments made in The claim. Ex.P1-FIR, Ex.P2-Copy of Insurance Policy, Ex.P3-Post Mortem Report, Ex.P4-Death Certificate and Ex.P5-Legal Heir Certificate were marked on The side of The Claimants. On behalf of The Appellant/Insurance Company, a private investigator was examined as Ex.R1-Authorization letter, Ex.R2-Investigator Report and Ex.R3-Muster Roll were marked on The side of The opposite party. One Mr. S. Jayaraman was examined on behalf of The first opposite party.

(3.) Heard The learned Counsel appearing for The Appellant and perused The materials available on record.