KAMAKSHI NEELAKANDAN Vs. NISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants stated in their application that the deceased Nagarajan was engaged as a car driver under the employment of the 1st opposite party and was paid a sum of Rs. 4,500/- as monthly salary. On 01.12.2004, at about 10.30 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding to Kalahasti, in a car bearing Registration No. TN-07-AA-1879, the car was involved in an accident with a Transport Corporation Bus bearing Registration No. TN-21-N-0529, on the G.S.T. Road. As a result, the driver of the car had sustained injuries and succumbed to it. The said car was insured with the 2nd opposite party herein. Therefore, the claim has been filed by the applicants against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The 1st opposite party had filed counter statement and resisted the application. The 1st opposite party submitted that the deceased Nagaraj was not employed by her but is only known to her. The 1st opposite party submitted that the deceased Nagaraj had informed her that his father was not well and took the car in order to go to see his father, as such, he used the car for his personal use. It was further stated that in the F.I.R. itself, it was mentioned that one Ms. Padma, a group dancer was proceeding to Kalahasti for a dharshan, along with her friends. As such, the Car was proceeding along with occupants for their personal use. The said car was never hired or rented. The 1st opposite party further submitted that there was no relationship between the deceased and herself as employee and employer. Further, the deceased was not engaged on a regular basis as employee. The said car bearing Registration No. TN-07-AA-1879 was insured with the 2nd opposite party.

(2.) The 2nd opposite party had filed counter statement and refuted the compensation petition. The 2nd opposite party submitted that the deceased Nagaraj was never employed by the 1st opposite party. As per the F.I.R., the said Car was not engaged on hire purpose and the deceased was not engaged as driver for the said car. Actually, one Padma and her friends had travelled in the said car and as such the car was used for personal use.

(3.) On the averments of all the parties, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1 had framed three issues namely: (1) Whether the deceased Nagaraj is a Workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act? (2) If so, whether the applicants are entitled to get Workmen's Compensation as dependents of the deceased Nagaraj? and (3) If so, who is liable to pay the compensation amount?