SATHISH KUMAR Vs. M.NEHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 10.03.2016 passed in E.C.No.104 of 2014 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the first respondent is the father and the second respondent is the mother of one N.Prabhakaran (deceased). The Prabakaran was working as a Driver under the appellant and the third respondent is the Insurer of the appellant's vehicle. On 03.05.2014 at about 02.30 a.m., when the Prabakaran was engaged in a trip from Coimbatore to Rameswaram in the vehicle bearing Reg No.TN-39-Z-3777 belongs to the appellant, he met with an accident. Due to the impact, he sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body and died on the spot. Immediately, he was taken to the Manamadurai Government Hospital and the doctor, who attended the Prabakaran declared his death on the same day. At the time of his death, he was aged about 22 years and he was the only breadwinner of the family. Due to his sudden death, his parents, the first and second respondents herein, lost his support and therefore, they filed a Claim Petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, as compensation for the death of their son.

(3.) Denying the allegations, the third respondent insurance company has filed a counter affidavit and submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy covering the vehicle involved in the accident, the policy does not cover the risk of any vehicle which was given for hire or reward. But the said vehicle bearing Reg No.TN-39-Z-3777 has been given for hire by the Insured person, who is the appellant herein, hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the first and second respondents/claimants. Further, there is no proof to show that the said Prabakaran had died only during the course of his employment with the appellant, and also there is no proof to show that the Prabakaran had valid driving license at the time of accident to drive the said vehicle. Moreover, the third respondent insurance company has submitted that as per the provisions under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the Insured/appellant has failed to provide necessary information in writing and has failed to submit any claim documents to them. Thus, in the instant case, there is a fundamental breach of policy conditions by the insured/appellant and willful violation of the condition that is imposed upon a contracting party (appellant) under the contract.