AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.M. Akbar Ali, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.04.2004 made in W.C. No. 21 of 2003 on
the file of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Thirunelveli.
The second respondent/Insurance Company is the appellant. The first respondent had filed a claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Tirunelvelli, for the death of his son Suresh, in course of employment. According to the claimant, the deceased was working as a loadman
in a Tractor bearing Registration No. TN74A-6913, belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and on 20.12.2002 the
tractor met with an accident result of which his son Suresh died.
According to the claimant, the deceased was working as a load man in the Tractor and in course of employment he died and claimed
compensation. The said claim was resisted by the Insurance Company on various grounds. The main contention raised was that the Trailor was not
insured with the Insurance Company, at the time of accident in which, the deceased was travelling.
The learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelvelli, who enquired the matter found that the deceased traveled only in the Tractor and not
on the Trailor and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and also awarded a sum of Rs. 2,02,666/- as compensation.
Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal on various grounds including the ground that the deceased
was travelling in the Tailor, which is not insured and he is also not permitted to travel in the tractor and therefore, the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay the Compensation.
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.
According to the appellant, the deceased was travelling in the Trailor which was not covered. Ex.R1,is the Insurance Policy under which a
premium has been paid for an employee. If the Insurance Company takes the plea that no one can travel in a Tractor along with the driver, the
acceptance of the premium for an employee is questionable? Once the insurance company accepted a premium for an employee in a policy for a
Tractor then the employee who was travelling in the tractor is covered under the policy. There is no bar that he cannot travel in the Tractor along
with driver. Necessarily he has to travel in the Tractor or in any other vehicle attached to the Tractor for which it is engaged. In this case, the
Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and it cannot escape from such a liability.
Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. Whether the deceased was travelling in the Tractor or in the Trailor is
immaterial when there is a premium paid to cover such employee.
Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P & C.M.Ps are also closed.