THIRU MURUGAN, PROPRIETOR, RAJUKANNA FIRE WORKS Vs. TMT MAYA,; MINOR THAMARAI SELVI,; SELVI VIJAYA LAKSHMI AND NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD , THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SIVAKASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the award dated 02.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli in his capacity as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C. No. 102 of 2003.

(2.) The first respondent before the lower authority/employer is the appellant herein. The respondents 1 to 3 are the dependants and legal representatives of Kalimuthu, the deceased workman. The insurer is the fourth respondent herein/the second respondent before the lower authority. The respondents 1 to 3 herein claiming to be the dependants and legal representatives of the deceased workman Kalimuth preferred a claim on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tirunelveli under Sections 4/21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 claiming a total sum of Rs. 4,59,270/- as compensation for the death of the above said Kalimuthu. It was contended therein that the deceased Kalimuthu who was employed by the appellant herein in its Fire Works Factory as a Watchman died in a fire accident that arose out of and in the course of employment while he was on duty at about 6.30 p.m. on 22.02.2003. The said claim was resisted by the appellant herein contending that the deceased, who was expected to be at the entrance of the factory premises, had no business to enter the factory premises, especially the stock room; that it was not within the scope of his duty to check each and every room of the Fire Works Factory to find whether they were locked or not that the enquiry conducted by the Management revealed that the fire broke out when the deceased made an attempt to open the door of the room in which explosive stocks had been stored and that hence, the accident could not be construed as one arising out of and in the course of the employment of the deceased. The claim was also resisted on the ground that the compensation claimed was highly excessive and exorbitant and that the age and monthly wages of the deceased had been given incorrectly in order to make a larger claim and thereby achieve a wrongful gain. The claim was also resisted by the Insurance Company, the fourth respondent herein/second respondent before the lower authority on the ground that there was only a Group Insurance Policy taken by the appellant/first respondent and as per the terms of the Group Insurance Policy a sum of Rs. 50,000/- had already been paid and hence, the fourth respondent herein/second respondent before the lower authority should be exonerated from making any further payment.

(3.) Based on the above said pleadings, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation conducted an enquiry in which the first respondent herein/first claimant was examined as the sole witness on the side of the claimants. One Saravanan was examined as R.W.1 on behalf of the appellant herein/first respondent whereas one Krishnan, the Administrative Officer of the fourth respondent herein/second respondent before the lower authority was examined as R.W.2. As many as six documents marked as Exs. P.1 to P.6 were relied on by the claimants. Three documents were marked on the side of the appellant/first respondent and four documents were marked on the side of the fourth respondent herein/second respondent before the lower authority.