CHARAG CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES Vs. R.G. GENESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal coming on for hearing on Wednesday, the 10th day of December, 1980 and this day upon perusing the petition of appeal, the orders of the lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K.N. Balasubramaniam, Advocate for the Appellant, and Mr. E.H. B. David, Advocate for the Respondent, the Court made the following orders:

(2.) THE appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation II, Madras, in W.C. Case No. 106 of 1977, on an application filed by the Respondent herein under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the Respondent was that his son Mr. G. Karunanidhi was a workman employed in the factory of the Appellant herein on a monthly wage of Rs. 150/ - and that on 28.6.1977, G. Karunanidhi received injuries in the course of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, which later resulted in his death on the same day. The injury, according to the Respondent, was sustained by his son while he fell down from the ceiling in the said tube during the course of his employment. Claiming that the Respondent is a dependant of late G. Karunanidhi and as such entitled to a lump sum compensation in a sum of Rs. 13,500/ -, the Respondent herein filed an application in W.C. Case No. 106 of 1977 for an order directing the Appellant herein to deposit the compensation.

(3.) BEFORE the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation -II, Madras, on 22.8.1978, the Appellant filed an application to implead the New India Assurance Company as a party -Respondent and secondly to decide the quantum of compensation. On 25.8.1978, notice of this application was ordered to the insurance company and in response to this, the insurance company in its reply dated 7.9 1978 stated that its presence as a party to the proceedings is not necessary as the claims of the party under the policy in question had been settled at Rs. 12,000/ - and that the policy issued by it was not under the provisions of the Act. Ultimately, the insurance company was not impleaded as a party -Respondent to the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation -II, Madras.