UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. IYYAPPAN; SEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant has filed W.C.No.561 of 2005, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai against the employer and Insurance Company and claimed compensation, stating that the applicant was involved in doing his work in the Paddy Crusher Machine bearing Registration No.TN-23-AZ-5995, under the 1st Opposite Party and earning Rs.200/- per day. While so, on 10.08.2005, at about 5.30 p.m., when he was doing his work, the driver of the Paddy Harvesting Machine had suddenly moved the harvester and thereby caused injuries to the applicant. Hence, the claim petition has been filed.

(2.) The Insurance Company has filed counter statement and resisted the compensation petition. The respondent stated that the lapse lies only on the side of the applicant and the 1st Opposite Party and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. In the instant case, there is no employer and employee relationship. The respondent denied the nature of injuries, mode of medical treatment, age and occupation of the applicant. Further, it was submitted in their additional counter that the vehicle harvester mounted with the Tractor and it has been authorised only to be used for agricultural purposes. Other than the driver, there is no room or R.C. or place provided for any other person to be seated or carried in the vehicle. Only the driver alone is covered under the policy of Insurance. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to any worker or loadman as per the Workman Compensation Act.

(3.) The 2nd Opposite Party further submits that the vehicle was a Tractor fitted with a harvester meant exclusively for the use of the insured. It is apparent from the F.I.R. that the vehicle has been used in the land of one Iyyappan and the injured also appears to be employed with the said Iyyappan. It was common knowledge that such machine is used to be put on hire for the benefit of all the agriculturists. However, as the vehicle was operating in 3rd Party's land and that too when it was hired for 3rd party, the 2nd Opposite party is not liable to pay compensation.