RANI AND ORS Vs. MANAGEMENT AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants have filed compensation petition in W.C.No.78 of 2005, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore against the respondents herein namely employer and Insurance Company stating that the 1st applicant's husband Mariappan was engaged as a Mason by the 1st opposite party. Besides doing Mason work on 31.12.2003, he was also engaged to cut iron rods. Due to the hard labour involved, he had developed chest pain and expired while he was taken to the hospital. Hence, the claim petition has been filed against the opposite parties.

(2.) The 1st opposite party has filed counter statement stating that he is a licenced contractor and the deceased was engaged for a few days work. On 31.12.2003, there was no work at all and the deceased had left the work spot at 5 'O' clock itself. At around 11.30 p.m., the deceased after consuming alcohol, had come to the room of Sundaramoorthy. While he was eating in the room, it is alleged that he developed chest pain, which resulted in his death. As such, the death is due to heart attack. Therefore, there is no nexus between the 1st opposite party and the said Mariappan as employer and employee. The respondent denied that the late Mariappan was engaged for cutting the iron rod on that day. The respondent further denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income of deceased. The respondent further stated that his company had taken valid Insurance Policy with the 2nd opposite party.

(3.) The Insurance Company had filed counter statement and resisted the compensation petition. The respondent stated that the deceased was a casual employee and not insured under the policy. Further, there was no employer-employee relationship between them. The respondent further stated that the deceased had died due to heart attack.