IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SULOCHANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegations found in the claim petition are as follows: Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are parents of Jalander aged 20 who was working under the opposite party No. 1 in a tractor bearing registration No. TN 20-M 8535. On 10.6.2005 while in the course of employment at about 12 noon when the tractor was coming from Kanambakkam to Konda Nellore, the vehicle going near Mugutha Chettiar land, the same was driven by the driver by name R. Vasu in a negligent manner and hence a jolt occurred resulting in Jalander falling down from the mudguard of the tractor and was run over by the tractor tyre. He was immediately taken to hospital where he was declared dead. He was earning a sum of Rs. 4,000 per month as wages under the employment of opposite party No. 1. THE case was registered in Crime No. 161 of 2005 under sections 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code and the charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the tractor. THE vehicle was insured with the opposite party No. 2 which was valid from 8.7.2004 to 7.7.2005. THE deceased was the only breadwinner of the family. Hence, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 is claimed as compensation. THE claimant Nos. 3 and 4 are the minor sister and brother of the deceased.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the opposite party No. 2 it is stated that the allegations that the deceased was working under the opposite party No. 1 as a workman of the tractor and was getting wages of Rs. 4,000 per month. The deceased was travelling in the tractor only in the capacity of a friend of the opposite party No. 1 and as such, there is no employer and workman relationship between the opposite party No. 1 and the deceased. The age and income of the deceased, place, date and time of the alleged accident are denied. The deceased did not sustain employment injury during the course and out of employment under the opposite party No. 1. The tractor was not insured with the opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that the deceased was not a workman under the meaning of section 2 (1) (n) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The opposite party No. 1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) FROM the oral testimonies available among the records, which is from the mouth of PW 1, it transpired that the deceased was going as a coolie under the opposite party No. 1 in the tractor, fell down and died. There is no doubt that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the tractor driver.