N. MUTHU GOUNDER Vs. PARAMASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the sixth respondent/Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation -cum - Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem in W.C. No. 242 of 2003, dated 26.12.2006. By the aforesaid order, the Commissioner held that the liability for paying compensation only rests with the petitioner and not with the fifth respondent/insurance company. The Commissioner also held that the deceased Ravi @ Periyasamy was employed in the bore drilling lorry, whereas the accident took place in the support lorry with registration number TN -4 -C -8917 and so long as it was not established that the deceased Ravi @ Periyasamy was employed in the support lorry, the liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company. In the present case, the legal heirs of the deceased Ravi filed a compensation case before the sixth respondent claiming compensation against the petitioner. The insurance company was also made a party second respondent. In the said W.C. No. 242 of 2002, it was stated by them that on 26.2.2003 when the support vehicle was brought on a reverse direction, the said Ravi @ Periyasamy was hit by the lorry and the back wheel of the lorry ran over him and he died on the spot. A case was registered on the file of T. Kallupatti Police Station in Crime No. 37 of 2003 on the same day. The criminal case was also pending trial before the criminal court. In fact, in the application filed for compensation, it was the assertion of the legal heirs of the deceased Ravi that he was a bore driller in the said vehicle which belonged to the petitioner.

(2.) INSTEAD of challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner dated 18.10.2004 and 26.12.2006 in appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before this Court, the petitioner came to this Court by contending that it was wrong on the part of the Commissioner to fix the liability on the petitioner, especially when the vehicle was insured. It was in that premises the writ petition was admitted on 16.3.2007. Pending the writ petition, in M.P. No. 1 of 2007, the petitioner was directed to deposit 50% of the award amount to the credit of W.C. No. 242 of 2003. It was thereafter the legal heirs of the deceased Ravi filed applications in M.P.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2008 seeking to vacate the interim order and to permit them to withdraw the amount. This Court disposed of both the applications by a common order dated 2.12.2008 and made the stay absolute by permitting the legal heirs of the deceased Ravi to withdraw 50% of the amount already deposited and directed the remaining amount to be deposited in a nationalized bank for a period of two years and legal heirs were permitted to withdraw the interest once in a semester.

(3.) IN the meantime, the fifth respondent/insurance company has filed a counter affidavit dated 14.6.2011. In the counter affidavit, in paragraphs 4 and 5 it was averred as follows: "4. It is further submitted that the deceased was admittedly only employed as driller in Rig Lorry KA 01 MF 2499. He cannot be considered employee in 2 vehicles by calling it a supporting Lorry TN 04 C 8917 which was insured with this Respondent. The deceased cannot be considered a workman under the employment in supporting Lorry. Thus the death has not arisen out of and in the course of employment of deceased in the supporting in order to maintain a claim Workmen Compensation Act. In such a case this Respondent, the insurer of supporting lorry cannot be held liable for the death of the deceased.