UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. S.SEENIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA(MD).No.203 of 2004, against the order made in W.C.No.589 of 2001, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Madurai.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows:- The appellant, viz., Tmt.S.Seeniammal, has filed an application under section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923, claiming a compensation of Rs.3,27,705/- as compensation, payable to them for the death of her husband viz., Balraj on 14.04.2001, in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment against the respondents. It was submitted that the deceased Balraj was working as a cleaner/loadman, under the 1st respondents borewell lorry bearing registration No.KA-06M-6837. On 14.04.2001, when he was travelling in the said vehicle and when the vehicle was coming near Kandaswasalu Pasa Village, Tumkur District, Karnataka State, the (deceased) Balraj tried to lift the power line which was above the lorry. Unfortunately, the deceased was electrocuted and sustained electrical burns and he died in the hospital. The deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident and he was getting Rs.3,000/- per month as salary. Hence, the applicant has filed the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the said lorry involved in the accident.

(3.) The 2nd respondent in his counter had denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased, as well as the nature of injuries and manner of accident. It was submitted that the applicant has to prove that the driver of the 1st respondent's lorry had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that there is no breach of policy conditions.