DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD , DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KAMARAJAR SALAI, MADURAI Vs. ASTALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the award dated 21.04.2011 made in W.C.No.96 of 2007 on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.

(2.) It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2/claimants that on 26.03.2007, about 03.30 a.m., when the deceased Muthukumaran was working as workman under the 3rd respondent/contractor in Bagasse yard / Feeding area of M/s.Sakthi Sugars Factory, a Lorry bearing registration No.KA.34-A-7550 while coming in the backward direction for loading in Bagasse yard, came negligently and dashed against the deceased, in which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the way to hospital. The respondents 1 and 2 who are parents of the deceased, had filed W.C.No.96 of 2007 on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The appellant filed counter, contending that the deceased was not the workman under the 3rd respondent and the accident had not occurred arising out of and in the course of employment under the 3rd respondent and since the deceased was a cleaner in the offending Lorry, compensation, if any, has to be paid only by the owner of the Lorry. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour held that the deceased died during the course of employment under the 3rd respondent and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,68,144/- to the respondents 1 and 2/claimants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has erred in holding that the deceased died due to the accidental injuries during the course of employment. Further, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has failed to note that the deceased was working as a Cleaner in the offending Lorry and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. The learned counsel further contended that the Commissioner failed to consider the FIR in prospective, wherein, it was stated that the deceased was working as a loadman only and not Bagasse yard / feeding area.