UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. A. SELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to set aside the final award dated 08.05.2017 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour - II, at Chennai in E.C.No.231 of 2014 and to dismiss the claim petition.

(2.) The case of the respondents / claimants is that one Alagarsamy, was employed by the 6th respondent and on 28.01.2014 at about 15.30 hrs, while proceeding into the crane bucket downwards along with three others for the purpose of digging the well, due to bad maintenance and mechanical operations of the said crane by its operator, the rope had detached and fell down about 80 feet below, due to which, all of them sustained severe injuries all over the body and immediately, while the said Alagarsamy was taken to Government General Hospital, Tiruchi, he died on the way and postmortem was conducted on the next day, i.e., 29.01.2014 and the police authorities have registered a case in Crime No.21 of 2014. Further, the said Alagarsamy was 36 years old at the time of accident and he was a daily wage employee, earning a sum of Rs.750/- per day and his average earning was about Rs.20,000/- per month. Also, by stating that the said Alagarsamy is only the sole breadwinner of the family, the claimants, who are the wife, children and mother of the deceased has filed a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.56,00,000/-.

(3.) Denying the averments of the respondents / claimants, the 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that after owning the crane for six years, the management had decided to dispose the crane, as it was lying idle and the same was sold to one Mr.Subramani, on 20.01.2014 and hence he is the absolute owner of the crane. However, the said Subramani had not done the necessary procedure for transferring his name in the RC book and in view of the same, the 6th respondent cannot be made liable for the fault of the said Subramani. Further, the FIR, does not contain the name of the 6th respondent and a perusal of RC Book also shows that the said Subramani has remitted tax for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 and this proves that he is the owner of the crane. The 6th respondent cannot be considered to be an employee under Employees Compensation Act and thereby sought to dismiss the claim petition.