The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 03.10.2002 made in W.C.No.101 of 2001, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Dindigul.
2.The brief facts of the case as follows:
The claimant's husband Varadarajan was a workman employed by the first respondent, the owner of TATA Van Reg.No.TN-57-Z-6041 which was insured to the second respondent. On 16.08.1999 while the deceased travelling along with 10 other loadmen from Sekurichy to Natham to load and unload party flag posts, arches serial sets and generators, the van was nearing Manakkatoor Bus Stop, the driver could not control the high speed of the vehicle and tried to avert the collision of the van with road side tree, suddenly applied the break, due to the sudden impact of the break, the van overturned. The deceased Varadarajan and one Andipillai died on the spot itself, and some other loadmen were also injured along with D.M.K.Party workers. The accident was immediately reported to the Natham Police Station by one Rajapillai who was also injured in the accident and the case was registered against the TATA Van TN-57-Z-6041 driver Selvaraj in Cr.No.444 of 1999, under
Section 279,337,304 (A) I.P.C., At the time of death of her husband, his age was 26, he has earned a sum of Rs.3000/- p.m. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition in W.C.No.101 of 2000, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Dindigul and prayed Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation and the same was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Dindigul.
3.Before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1, two witnesses viz., P.W.2 & P.W.3 were examined and four documents viz., Ex.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no one was examined and one document viz.,Ex.R1 was marked.
4.Against the order, the appellant/claimant has preferred the Civil Miscellaneous appeal.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6.In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the appellant has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law for consideration:
?1. Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation is right in holding that deceased was not a load man/workman under Section 2(n) of W.C.Act?
2.Whether the learned Deputy Commissionre of labour for Workmen compensation is right in deciding without framing a specific issue?
7.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation failed to note that as per the evidence on record the deceased was proceeding in a van belonging to the first respondent herein as a load man in order to unload flags and generator for a political meeting, the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent.
8.He further submitted that the first respondent had not specifically denied that the deceased was not a load man at the time of accident. He further submitted that the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour for Workmen Compensation failed to frame an issue whether the deceased was a load man under the first respondent at the time of the accident and if it is what is the quantum of compensation to which the appellant is entitled to. The learned Commissioner failed to note that Ex.A1-F.I.R is only to prove the negligence aspect. Unless the contents are proved, it is to be rejected as per the judgments of this Hon'ble Court. The F.I.R does not contain the individual particular viz., load man or not. From the other evidence, it is clear that the deceased was a loadman at the time of accident, the appellant is entitled to compensation under W.C.Act. Hence he prayed to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Dindigul for fresh consideration.
9.The learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the appellant has failed to prove that the deceased Varadharajan was the workman under the first respondent. They further submitted that there is no merit on the other side to prove her case, no valid policy at that time of accident. Hence there is no necessity to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Dindigul.
10.This Court finds that there is no discussion regarding with the evidence, no reason has been given, why the Tribunal has not considered that the deceased as a loadman and the Tribunal has simply stated that the deceased person has not been come under the benefit of Workmen Compensation Act and he has simply dismissed the application filed by the claimant.
11.Hence the mater is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Dindigul and dispose the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving necessary opportunities to both the parties. If the Tribunal feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to examine the witness, it can do so and both the parties are directed to co-operate with the proceedings without taking further adjournments.
12.The registry is directed to send the entire case records to the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Dindigul along with this order copy. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.
To
1.The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.