MANAGEMENT UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KATHAPERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant / second respondent has preferred the appeal in C.M.A.No.1847 of 2000, against the judgment and decree made in W.C.No.187 of 1998, on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thrichirapalli.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:- The applicants, who are the parents of the (deceased) Karunanidhi had filed a claim in W.C.No.187 of 1998, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.2,24,000.00 from the respondents, for the death of the said Karunanidhi in an accident arising during the course of doing his duty under the employment of the first respondent. It was submitted that the (deceased) Karunanidhi was employed as a cleaner / helper in the first respondent's bus travel company and that he was aged 20 years at the time of accident. On 26.09.1996, when the first respondent's bus was proceeding near Thiruvakkarai Village, it was stopped to set-right the punctures in the wheel of the bus, and the driver of the bus was attending to repair of the punctured tyre in wheel. At that time, the (deceased) Karunanidhi was asked by the driver to get an Aluminum ladder from the bus in order to attend the repairs. When the (deceased) Karunanidh, after getting the aluminum ladder from the bus, was proceeding towards the driver, the ladder held by him accidentally had grazed against a live electric wire nearby and in the result, the (deceased) was electrocuted and died on the spot. It was submitted that the driver of the bus had not reported the accident to the police station. Subsequently, the postmortem was conducted at Dindivanam Government Hospital. When the first petitioner came to know about the accident, he had immediately given a complaint at the police station and a case was registered. It was submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased was earning Rs.2,100.00 per month. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the first, second respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the bus and the third respondent who has been added as a party as he policy holder for the said bus.

(3.) ON the petitioners side, the first petitioner, viz., Kathaperumal was examined as P.W.1. and three documents were marked as Exs.P1, P2 and P3 viz., Ex.P1-F.I.R., Ex.P2-copy of postmortem report and Ex.P3-copy of death certificate. On the respondent's side, no witness was examined, but one document was marked as Ex.R1-copy of the insurance policy.