LAWS(MAD)-1997-8-82

COMMISSIONER KOVILPATTI MUNICIPALITY Vs. TAMILARASAN

Decided On August 14, 1997
COMMISSIONER, KOVILPATTI MUNICIPALITY Appellant
V/S
TAMILARASAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal was the respondent in W.C. No. 63 of 1987 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for the Workmen Compensation, Tirunelvefi. The respondents herein are the petitioners in that proceedings. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties to this appeal are referred to in the rank in which they are described in the proceedings before the lower court.

(2.) One subbiah was a workman employed by the respondent was not in dispute. The said Subbiah.died on 14.2.1985 on account of injuries sustained by him due to an attack by some miscreants is also not disputed. Though, he was assaulted on 14.2.1985. he died only on 15.2.1985 is also not in dispute. Alleging that Subbiah died as a result of the injuries sustained by him arising out of and in the course of his employment, a petition for compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 33,360/- was filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal. Among other things the claim was opposed by the respondent stating that the deceased Subbiah did not receive any injuries, which resulted in his death, in the course of and arising out of his employment and therefore, no compensation can be awarded. It was also contended that the petitioners were also not the dependents of the deceased. However, the Lower court by order dated 10.5.1988 awarded a sum of Rs. 36,854.05 and the correctness of this order is questioned in this appeal by the respondent before the lower court. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner also reserved the issue of dependents to be decided later after the deposit is made.

(3.) I heard Mr, T. Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to the question involved in this appeal, viz., whether the deceased received injuries resulting in his death in the course and arising out of his employment and even if it is so, whether the petitioners would be 'dependents' within the meaning of the Act. It is not in dispute that the deceased was employed as a Sanitary Worker in the 'C' Division of the respondent-Municipality. The allegation in the petition is that in the early morning of 14.2.1985, i.e., at 5.30 A.M. the deceased left his house to report for duty. After he travelled half a kilometre, from his residence and at 50 feet west of Mappillai Muthalah House at Ettayapuram Road, some miscreants unexpectedly and suddenly attacked him. He was taken by his co-workers in the municipal cart to the Government Hospital from where he was shifted to Tirunelveli. There he is stated to have died at about 3 P:M. on 15.2.1985.