DHANASEKARI Vs. S.VELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arose from the award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1 at Chennai, dtd. 12/2/2009 in W.C. No.170 of 2007 is filed by the applicants challenging the award, mainly on the ground that the Insurance Company/3rd respondent is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation to the claimants/petitioners.

(2.) The appellants herein are the petitioners and the respondents herein are the respondents-Opposite Parties in W.C. No.170 of 2007 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai. The 1st appellant is the wife and 2nd and 3rd appellants are the daughters and 4th and 5th appellants are the mother and father respectively, and being legal heirs of the deceased Sundarakesavan.

(3.) The case of the appellants herein is that Sundarakesavan, the husband of the 1st petitioner /1st appellant herein, died on 10/1/2007 owing to the severe injuries sustained in the accident occurred on 27/12/2006 while he was employed as a Auto Driver with A. Ramesh, 2nd respondent herein. As the said Accident took place during the course of employment, the legal heirs of the deceased, filed an Application in W.C.No.170 of 2007 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") claiming compensation under Sec. 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Insurance Company filed its Counter stating that if there was a valid insurance, the same was not transferred duly to the 2nd respondent who is said to be the owner of the Vehicle and also questioning the relationship between the deceased Sundarakesavan and the 2nd respondent herein. The Commissioner after hearing parties and perusing the documents brought on record, passed an award of Rs.3,52,980.00(Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Only) to the petitioners/appellants herein by fastening the liability only on the 2nd respondent and relieving the Insurance Company/3rd respondent herein from the liability holding that after the 1st respondent herein had sold his Vehicle to the 2nd respondent herein, the Insurance Policy was not transferred to the name of the 2nd respondent herein and stood in the name of 1st respondent. Being aggrieved by the said award of the Commissioner, the petitioners/appellants herein have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to set aside the same.