MULEY BROTHER PVT LTD Vs. SAMINDARABAI KARBHARI DANDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties were heard on the last dates. The appeal is preferred by the appellants for challenging judgment and order dated 21st april, 2007 passed by the learned judge of the labourcourt at Aurangabad in a claim petition filed by the first respondent underthe provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). According to case of the first respondent, herson was employed as a helper of a Driver. According to her case, he was drawing salary of Rs. 2,200/- p. m. According to her, the appellants were his employers. According to case of the first respondent, on 11th August, 1997, the first appellant directed herson to go alongwith third respondent who was at the relevant time working as a Driver of Dumper no. MP-C-17/1942. According to case of the first respondent, the Dumper was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the respondent no. 3. Ultimately, the Dumper gave a dash to a tree. As a result of the impact, the son of the first respondent received serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. According to case made out by the first respondent, the appellants herein and the third respondent herein, were responsible for causing death of herson.

(2.) IT must be stated here that in the claim petition as originally filed, the registration number of the Dumper was mentioned as mp-17/1942 instead of MP-17-C/1942. In the written statement filed by the first appellant it was contended that the vehicle bearing no. MP-17/1942 was not owned by the first appellant but the vehicle No. MP-17-C/1942 was owned by the first appellant which was at the relevant time insured with the second respondent-insurer. The first appellant denied that deceased son of the first respondent was drawing salary of Rs. 2,200/- per month. It was stated that the deceased was working with first appellant as a Helper to the Driver of the first appellant and that he was paid Rs. 600/-per month for doing work of casual nature. It was contended that the deceased died during the course of journey as stated by the first respondent in paragraph 4 of her claim petition. It was lastly contended in the written statement that the vehicle bearing No. MP-17-C/1942 was insured with the second respondent at the time of accident and, therefore, the second respondent-insurer was liable to pay compensation to the first respondent.

(3.) SECOND respondent-insurer also filed written statement containing general denials. The second respondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.