RAJUS GAS SERVICE INDANE DISTRIBUTORS Vs. BALAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1986 rendered in O.S.No.5 of 1982 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

(2.) IT is one Raju's Gas Service, Indane Gas Distributors, the first defendant to the suit represented by Kasturi and Subramanai, the defendants 3 and 4 to the suit, as the legal representatives of the deceased Proprietor Tiruvannamalai, have preferred the above appeal suit against the plaintiff one Balambal, an individual, and the second defendant the United India Insurance Company Limited, Madras.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the second defendant, insurance company, it would be urged that the suit is not maintainable and regarding all the allegations made in paras Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff is put to strict proof. This defendant would not also admit the expenses incurred as narrated in the plaint and the salary of the deceased as stated by the plaintiff at Rs.300 per month: that the policy issued to the first defendant do not cover the employer's liability under Section VI of the policy: that the relative clause in the policy has been specifically deleted and struck off and therefore this defendant is not at all liable to meet the plaintiff's claim: that on this short ground, the suit is liable to be dismissed so far as this defendant is concerned: that the employer's liability having been specifically excluded under Section VI of the policy from the terms of the policy, which was in force on the date of the alleged accident, this defendant is not liable to pay any amount much less the claim amount: that there is no cause of action against this defendant and the one alleged is false: that at any event, the claim is excess and exorbitant: that the trial Court will have no jurisdiction and that only an application before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation will lie if at all the plaintiff has any claim against the other defendants. On such allegations, the second defendant would also pray to dismiss the suit with costs.