NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the claim petition, following facts have been stated: 1. (i) The petitioner Nagaraj is son of one Rangasamy, a workman employed as Driver in first opposite party's car bearing Registration No.T.L.B. 549, who received personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in sustaining grievous injuries on 6.5.2000 in Madurai to Rameswaram Highways Road near Ariyanenthal. He was taken to Paramakudi Government Hosptial and later admitted at Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. He suffered fracture. The car was insured with the Second Opposite Party. The monthly wage of the petitioner was Rs.4,000/- and he was aged 34 years at the time of accident. Hence compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- has been prayed for.

(2.) THE allegations in brief, found in the counter of Second Opposite Party are as under: 2.(i) THE policy issued for the car is only an Act policy and the occupants of the car were not offered coverage under the policy of insurance. THE applicant was not driving the car as a driver of the owner of the car and in the F.I.R. it is stated that the car was insured in the name of Rangasamy, father of the applicant. Hence it cannot be held that the son was under the employment of the father as a driver. THE applicant is a resident of Bangalore. In order to maintain the application he has given false address that he was residing at Tirupur. In the F.I.R. he has mentioned that he is residing in 31, Oakkalipuram, Bangalore, and running a Banian company in the said address. At the time of accident he was not under the employment of the owner of the Car. No injury was caused during the course of employment. It is admitted in the F.I.R. that only due to the fault as he slept while driving the car, the car dashed against the tree and accident took place. THE averments in the application are disputed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would also say that in the F.I.R., the first respondent has stated that he is running a banian company. But in the course of examination, he has stated that he does not know that in the F.I.R., whether he has stated that he is running a banian company in Bangalore. After scrutinizing the statement of the first respondent, the Commissioner has observed that the Insurance Company has not established that the claimant is son of the first opposite party and that he is an employee under first opposite party.