Bangalore District Court
Smt. Saraswathi Selvaraj vs Sri.M.Natarajan on 25 February, 2022
KABC020124792018
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-12)
Present: Shri. MOHAMED ARIFULLA C.F.
B.Sc., LL.B.,
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-12, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2022
ECA No.78/2018
Petitioners: 1.Smt. Saraswathi Selvaraj
W/o Late T.K.Selvaraj @ Selvaraj
Kaliyannan
Aged about 49 years.
2. Naveen Kumar Selvaraj
S/o Late T.K. Selvaraj Kaliyannan
Aged about 21 years.
3. Kum. Devi Abhirami.S.
D/o Late T.K. Selvaraj @ Selvaraj
Kaliyannan
Aged about 16 years.
Since minor Rep. By her mother and
natural guardian Smt. Saraswathi
Selvaraj W/o Late.T.K. Selvaraj @
Selvaraj Kaliyannan.
All are R/at # 125/9,
Udhayamarathumedu
Thanasavi Roal, K.V.Palayam Post,
Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District.
TamilNadu-638401.
SCCH-12 2 ECA No.78/2018
Present local address:
C/o Manjunath # 10, 3rd Cross,
Chikkabegur Main Road, Kudlu gate,
Bangalore-560068.
(By Sri. Chandrashekar
H.L.,Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Sri.M.Natarajan
S/o Marappa Gounder
Aged- Major
#122, Krishnan Bakery,
Thanavasi Road,
Sathyamangalam, Erode District,
Tamilnadu-638401
(R.C.owner of Lorry bearing Reg.No.
TN-34-R-1056)
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd
Regional Office, T.P. Hub,
#144, Shubharam Complex, M.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
(Insurer of of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.TN-34-R-1056)
Policy No.651401/31/17/6300000830
Valid from 03.05.2017 to 02.05.2018.
(R.1 By Sri. Umesh.R, Advocate
&R.2 By Sri.S.R.Murthy,
Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition U/S 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for claiming compensation with respect to the death of T.K.Selvaraj in the SCCH-12 3 ECA No.78/2018 motor vehicle accident, who is the son of husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner no.2 and 3.
2. Brief Facts: The case of the petitioners is that, on 10.02.2018 at about 4.00 p.m., her husband T.K.Selvaraj was the driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-34-R-1056 and was working under respondent no.1 and on the instructions of respondent no.1, he got unloaded Iron Road load in Madduru Town, Mandya District and on 12.02.2018 he got loaded coconut shell charcoal and left Tiptur town at about 5.30 p.m. to Kangal, TamilNadu and was proceeding on Bidar- Srirangapatna road, at that time, he stopped the said Lorry near Nelligere Circle, Karabayalu Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District. Since the lorry did not move, the other road users and public came and noticed that, the driver T.K.Selvaraj died in the said lorry due to heart-attack and the said incident occurred during the course of employment under the respondent no.1. Further stated that, at the time of accident, her deceased was aged about 52 years and was hale and healthy and was working under respondent no.1 as 'Driver' and getting salary of Rs.30,000/- per month and was contributing his entire income for the welfare and maintenance of the family members and he had no vices. Due to the sudden and untimely demise of the deceased, the petitioners became destitute and sustained great loss and hardship. The petitioner no.1 is the wife and the petitioner no. 2 and 3 are the children of deceased and SCCH-12 4 ECA No.78/2018 they were entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. Hence, this petition.
3. After registering the case the notices were issued to the respondent no.1 and 2. Though respondent no.1 appeared before this court through his counsel has not filed written statement. The respondent no.2 insurance company has appeared before this court through its counsel and has filed its objections.
The respondent no.2 in its written statement has contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. Further it does not admit the issuance of insurance policy to Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-34-R-1056 and liability to indemnify, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy, provisions of the Motor vehicles Act and valid and effective driving license held by the driver of the lorry as on the date of alleged accident. Further stated that the respondent no.1 has not complied the provisions under Section 134(c) of the M.V.Act and the police have not complied the provisions of Section 158(6). The respondent no.1 knowing fully well that deceased T.K.Selvaraj@ Selvaraj Kaliyannan was not having any driving licence authorizing him to drive class/type of vehicle allegedly involved in the alleged accident as on the date of alleged accident, without having valid F.C. permit and he had entrusted the said vehicle to such a person to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident. The respondent no.1 has SCCH-12 5 ECA No.78/2018 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act by entrusting consciously his lorry to deceased T.K.Selvaraj who did not possess valid driving licence and also did not possess valid permit, F.C. at the time of accident. The respondent no.1 has failed and neglected to perform the statutory obligation to seek indemnification, violation of M.V.Act in this regard and also the terms and conditions of the contract would dis entitle the respondent no.1 to claim indemnification from it. Further denied the manner of accident and death and also denied the age, income, avocation of the deceased. Further it seeks permission of this hon'ble court to contest the matter under section 170 of M.V.Act if the owner/insured fails to contest the claim in collusion with the petitioner or if he remains exparte. Further stated that the claim petition is highly excessive, exaggerated and imaginary and unreasonable and prays to dismiss the claim petition against it.
4. Whereas the respondent no.2 has denied the relationship of the deceased with the respondent no.1 as employer and employee and also denied that the accident was not occurred during the course of employment and the death is caused due to heart attack and not due to work stress and there is no nexus between the death and during the course of employment. Further stated that the deceased T.K.Selvaraj was not employed under the respondent at any point of time including the date of accident. The death of the deceased is caused only due to his negligent driving.
SCCH-12 6 ECA No.78/2018Further stated that the said petition is devoid of merits and frivolous in nature and hence this respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. The respondent no.2 has also filed an additional written statement contending that the accident occurred at Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District and the petitioners are also residing at Tamilnadu and this Hon'ble court has no jurisdiction and the petitioners have created rental agreement for the purpose of getting compensation from this respondent. Under these circumstances petitions is liable to be dismissed. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessors-in-office have framed the following;
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri. T.K.Selvaraj @ Selvaraj Kaliyannan?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that 10.02.2018 at about 4.00 p.m., her husband T.K.Selvaraj was the driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-34-R-1056 and was working under respondent no.1 and on the instructions of respondent no.1, he got unloaded Iron Road load in Madduru Town, Mandya District and on 12.02.2018 he got loaded coconut shell charcoal and left Tiptur town at about 5.30 p.m. to Kangal, TamilNadu and was proceeding on Bidar-Srirangapatna road, SCCH-12 7 ECA No.78/2018 at that time, he stopped the said Lorry near Nelligere Circle, Karabayalu Village, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District. Since the lorry did not move, the other road users and public came and noticed that, the driver T.K.Selvaraj died in the said lorry due to heart-attack and the said incident occurred during the course of employment under the respondent no.1.?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
7. In order to prove the above issues the petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1 and also got marked documents at Ex. P1 to 14. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 has got examined its Administrative Officer as R.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 and R.2. The respondent got examined himself as R.W.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.3 to R.7. Further he examined RTO, Gopichettipalya, Erode Dist, Tamilnadu as R.W.3 and got marked documents at Ex.R 9 to Ex.R-12.
8. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire materials placed on record and also the written arguments of respondent no.2 and my answers on the above issues are as follows;
ISSUE No.1 to 3 : In the Affirmative,
ISSUE No.4 : As per final order
for the following;
SCCH-12 8 ECA No.78/2018
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO. 1 to 3 :- Since these issues are inter- related to each other, I have taken together for common discussion.
10. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 and therefore, the petitioners at the outset are required to prove that at the relevant point of time, the deceased T.K.Selvaraj @ Selvaraj Kaliyannan was an employee working under respondent No.1-Employer and later they have to establish that the accident in question had arisen during the course and out of the employment. If this is proved, then only the maintainability of the petition to claim compensation can be considered. Under these circumstances, let me examine whether in the instant case the petitioners are able to prove that the deceased was working as a Driver under respondent No.1 as an employee and the accident in question arose during the course of and out of his employment with respondent No.1.
11. In this petition, the petitioners have clearly stated that the deceased was working as driver under the respondent no.2 in the Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-34-R-1056 on monthly salary of Rs.30,000/- and while he was discharging his duties during the course of employment under the respondent no.1 in his Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-34-R-1056 sustained heart attack on 10.02.2018 at 04.00 pm. The SCCH-12 9 ECA No.78/2018 death occurred due to cardiac arrest as a result of coronary arteries insufficiency consequent upon coronary artery disease during the employment under the respondent no.2 arising out and in the course of it.
12. The case has been lodged in the Belluru police station in their UDR No.009/2018 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. In this regard, the petitioners have produced the copy of F.I.R. and complaint, which have been marked as Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 complaint, Ex.P.3 and 4 statement of witnesses, Ex.P.5 post mortem report, Ex.P.6 death certificate, Ex.P.7 copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner, Ex.P.8 and 9 Aadhaar cards of petitioner no. 2 and 3, Ex.P.10 Aadhaar card of deceased and Ex.P.11 Driving licence of deceased.
13. The respondent no.1 and 2 have denied the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent no.1 and he has got examined himself as R.W.2.
14. The respondent no.2 has taken a specific defence that, the said T.K.Selvaraj @ Selvaraj died due to heart attack and not due to work stress and there is no nexus between the death and course of employment. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has canvassed the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 ACJ(1) between Shankuntala Chandrakant Shresti V/s Prabhakar Maruthi Garvali and another wherein, it is held;
SCCH-12 10 ECA No.78/2018Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, sections 30(1) and 3(1)-Appeal-
Maintainability of-Substantial question of law-Heart attack-Arising out of and in the course of employment-
Commissioner without arriving at a finding that job of the workman involved any stress or strain, allowed compensation for his death due to heart attach while on duty- Contention that finding of fact cannot be interfered in appeal-Without evidence that death due to cardiac arrest has occurred because of stress or strain, the commissioner would not have jurisdiction to grant compensation- Whether finding of fact arrived at without there being any evidence involves a substantial question of law and appeal is maintainable- Held: yes.
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, section 3(1)- Arising out of and in the course of employment- Heart attack- Cleaner while alighting from vehicle suddenly developed chest pain, was taken to hospital where he was declared dead-Autopsy was conducted and doctor opined that cause of death was crdiac arrest due to rupture aortic ancurysm-No allegation in claim petition nor any evidence produced that deceased met with his death by reason f any stress or strain-
Commissioner allowed compensation and the High Court found that findings of the Commissioner were perverse and inconsistent with the material on record and bereft of any reason- Job of cleaner was not strenuous and he was SCCH-12 11 ECA No.78/2018 merely getting down from the vehicle- Whether the Commissioner erred in allowing compensation without arriving at a finding that job involved any stress or strain-Held: yes; no evidence of any causal connection between the accident and injury so as to fulfill the requirements of the term 'out of employment'.
He has also canvassed judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 ACJ 721 between Rashida Haroon Kupurade V/s Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others wherein, it is held;
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, section 3(1)- Arising out of and in the course of employment- Heart attack- Compensation-Liability of employer- Death of workman due to heart attack- High Court found that death of workman occurred due to heart attach and no nexus between death and accident which had occurred six months prior to death-High Court allowing appeal against the award of Commissioner exonerated insurance company but fastened liability on the employer as death occurred during the course of employment and relationship of employer and employee between accident and death and employer is liable-Held: no.
He has also canvassed judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2020 ACJ 108 SCCH-12 12 ECA No.78/2018 between Divisional Manager, New India Assurance co.Ltd V/s C.Manjamma and others, wherein, it is held;
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, section 3(1)- Arising out of and in the course of employment- Heart attack-
Workman, an autorickshaw driver, suffered heart attack while driving the vehicle-Dependents filed claim alleging that deceased suffered heart attack while he was discharging his duty-
Commissioner held that death had occurred due to stress and strain suffered by the driver during the course of his duty and awarded compensation- Deposition of mother of deceased that while discharging his duty her son developed chest pain, fell unconscious and died while undergoing treatment in hospital not worthy of credence as she was not present at the spot at the relevant time- As per post-mortem report cause of death could not be ascertained as body was in advanced decomposed stage- No evidence regarding admission of the workman in hospital-Oral and documentary evidence does not establish that workman suffered heart attack-Whether death of workman occurred during the course of employment-Held: no;
Commissioner's order set aside.
He has also canvassed judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainatal reported in 2017 ACJ 1590 between Deepa Rautela V/s J.K. Saukat Cement Pipe Pvt. Ltd, wherein, it is held;
SCCH-12 13 ECA No.78/2018Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, section 3(1)- Arising out of and in the course of employment- Heart attack- Deceased a driver was sleeping in the accommodation provided by employer situated within the precincts of factory when he suffered cardiac arrest and died while being shifted for medical aid-Claimant filed claim under Workmen's Compensation Act and his life during the course of his employment as he was staying within the premises of the factory-Evidence that deceased suffered cardiac arrest in the morning while he was on his bed and to presume that he died during the section 3-Whether the death arose out of and in the course of employment and claimant is entitled to compensation- Held:no He has also canvassed judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad reported in 2005(2) TAC 6 (ALL) between Chandresh Kumar Agrawal V/s Yogendra Kumar Srivasthava and another, wherein, it is held;
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1939, Sections 96(2) and 110-D-(Section 149(2) and 173 of Act 59 of 1988)-
Motor insurance-Policy-Liability of
Insurance Company-Collission
between motor cycle and truck-
claimant proved by reliable evidence that accident was caused by offending truck-Driver of truck apprehended on spot-Offending truck driven in an unauthorized manner and against the terms and conditions of policy- Plying of vehicles on road without valid SCCH-12 14 ECA No.78/2018 permit and certificate of fitness prohibited under law-Whether Tribunal committed error of law in fastening liability to pay compensation on owner of vehicle- Held-No-Owner of vehicle held liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
He has also canvassed judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam reported in 2009 ACJ 2440 between Thara V/s Syamala, wherein, it is held;
Motor vehicles Act, 1988, section 149(2) (a) (I) (a) and (c) -Motor insurance-Goods vehicle-Permit and fitness certificate-Liability of insurance company-Accident occurred on 05.06.2001 and permit and fitness certificate of the vehicle was valid till 15.2.2001-Insurance company disputed its liability on the ground that goods vehicle was being plied by the insured did not have a valid fitness certificate or permit will entitle the insurance company to avoid its liability under the policy.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has argued that, the said T.K.Selvaraj @ Selvaraj died due to heart attack and he did not die due to stress or strain in the course of employment and therefore, the company is not liable to pay compensation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the supra judgments has made a proposition of law that, if workman dies due to heart attack without stress or strain while on duty the insurer is not liable to pay compensation.
SCCH-12 15 ECA No.78/201816. In the present case on hand, it appears from the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner that, the deceased T.K.Selvaraj @ Selvaraj started his driving from Perondorai on 10.02.2018 at 4.00 pm with a load of steel rods and unloaded the same at Madduru town, Mandya District on 12.02.2018 and he drove the said lorry to Tiptur town where he took a coconut shell charcoal load from Tiptur town at 5.30 p.m. and started driving the lorry towards Kannagal, Tamilnadu on Bidar-Srirangapatna road and he stopped the lorry at about 8.30 pm near Nelligere circle, Karabayalu village, Belluru Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya district and the other road users noticed the same and they came to know that he died due to cardiac arrest. It shows that, he started driving from 4.00 pm on 10.02.2018 till 8.30pm of 12.02.2018 and during the course of driving he died. It also shows that, he drove the said lorry for more than 52 hours without any rest. This fact clearly goes to show that, there was a stress and also strain caused to the deceased and due to this, he sustained cardiac arrest and died. As such, it cannot be said that, the death of the deceased occurred was not because of stress or strain as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. As such, the respondent no.2 cannot take shelter of the above reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and other Hon'ble High Courts.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka SCCH-12 16 ECA No.78/2018 reported in ILR 2014 KAR 2067 between the Managing Director, KSRTC and another V/s Smt. Jayalakshmi and others wherein, it is held;
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section3 - Compensation for accidental injuries- Deceased was made to work though he had informed the officials of the Corporation that he is having chest pain and he is not able to drive the bus- Death during the course of employment-Award of compensation-
Appealed against-Factors to be established to prove the accident-
HELD, the factors which would have to be established to prove the accidental injuries are (I) Stress and strain arising during the course of employment (ii) nature of employment (iii) injury aggravated due to stress and strain- FURTHER HELD, In the matter on hand, admittedly the workman was drivier working in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. The Conductor of the bus- PW-2, who had slept along with the deceased workman at the time of incident in the bus, has specifically deposed before the Commissioner that the deceased informed the officials of the appellant/Corporation in the morning of 6.102006 at the time of reporting for duty itself that he is having chest pain and that he is not able to drive the bus despite the same, the officials of the applicant/Corporation insisted the driver that he should drive the vehicle on that day because of lack of SCCH-12 17 ECA No.78/2018 driver's strength on that particular day.- The very fact that the deceased was made to drive the bus from morning till evening of 06.10.2006 on route no.99 and that he was again instructed to drive the bus from the evening of 06.10.2006 till next day on the route Arsikere-Shimoga, Mysore- Arsikere, clearly reveals that the death was occurred while he was on duty.
ON FACTS HELD,
(a) As is clear from the evidence of P.W.2 the deceased was suffering from head ache, chest pain when he reached Shimoga from Mysore on the night of 06.10.2006. Immediately, he went to medical shop and purchased some pills and consumed the same for relief from headache.
Unfortunately, the deceased suffered massive heart attack while a sleep in the bus during the night intervening between 06.10.2006 and 07.10.2006.Hence, the Commissioner for Workman Compensaion is justified in concluding that the death was direct result of continuous and heavy work entrusted to the deceased and that the deceased died during the course of duty.
(b) In the matter on hand, the stress and strain suffered by the deceased did mainly contribute to or accelerate the injury. - the case on hand, is the finest example relating to direct communication between injury and employment and loss of SCCH-12 18 ECA No.78/2018 life due to strain of ordinary work.
The stress and strain did contribute to and accelerate the injury. The circumstances has brought out by the claimants clearly revealed that the death was caused as a result of failure of heart which is because of strain and stress of the work. Stress and strain has resulted in sudden heart failure and the death has occurred during the course of employment. The pre existing heart condition of the deceased was aggravated by the strain of work of the deceased and same has resulted in his death. The Commissioner for Workman Compensation is justified in awarding compensation-
Accordingly, no reference is called for. -Words "ACCIDENT" and "INJURY"- Discussed.
18. In the above reported judgment our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka made a proposition of law in para no.7 of the judgment that, if the workman were to die while on duty, it might be because of something going wrong within the human frame itself, such as breaking of a blood vessel, coronary artery disease etc. If that occurred, it would properly be described as an internal accident. In the present case on hand also, the deceased died due to such breaking of blood vessel or coronary artery disease and therefore the death of the deceased is also considered as an internal accident. As already discussed above, it is very clear from the facts and circumstances of the case that, the deceased died due to the stress and strain as he was driving the lorry for more than 52 SCCH-12 19 ECA No.78/2018 hours without rest and therefore, it is considered that the death caused during the course of employment due to stress and strain. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has not at all elicited anything from the mouth of the petitioner to say that, the death was not caused due to stress and strain.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has cross examined the P.W.1 and he has also denied the relationship of employer and employee in the cross examination but nothing has been elicited to say that there was no such relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and respondent no.1. The official of the respondent no.1 has got examined himself as R.W.1 and he has also stated that the deceased was not a driver in the offending vehicle. The respondent no.1 has also taken a similar defence regarding the relationship of employer and employee. However, no material has been placed before the court to say that the deceased was not an employee under the respondent no.1. Though the respondent no.1 has stated that the deceased was not an employee under him but, he has admitted that that he is the owner of the said lorry. He has also admitted that, on the day of accident, the deceased was driving his lorry and died due to heart attack. It shows that the deceased was driving the said lorry as an employee under the respondent no.1.
20. The R.W.1 has taken a defence in his evidence that, the said lorry was not having valid permit, F.C. at the SCCH-12 20 ECA No.78/2018 time of accident. In this regard, the respondent no.2 has got examined official of RTO, Gopichettipalya, Erode Dist, Tamilnadu as R.W.3 and he has produced Form No.24, true copy of national permit and true copy of Tamilnadu State permit and these documents show that, the said lorry was having national permit which was valid from 12.06.2017 to 04.06.2018 which was in the name of the respondent no.1. It shows that, on the date of the accident, the permit was valid. The respondent no.2 has also produced EX.R.4 Form No.24, EX.R.5 to 7 Registered vehicle details and these documents also disclose that, the said lorry was having valid permit and F.C.at the time of accident. As such, the defence taken by the respondent no.2 holds no water.
21. The documents produced by the petitioners clearly goes to show that the deceased T.K.Selvaraj was working as driver under the respondent no.1 and on 12.02.2018 while he was discharging his duty during the course of employment under the respondent no.1 he died as stated above. There is no material before this court to say that, the deceased was not employee under respondent no.1 and nothing has been elicited from the mouth of the P.W.1 in the cross examination and therefore is no reason to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence of petitioners.
22. As far as the relationship of petitioners with the deceased is concerned, there is no serious dispute. There is SCCH-12 21 ECA No.78/2018 no rebuttal evidence to hold that they were not the dependents of the deceased.
23. As far as the occurrence of incident is concerned, there is no serious dispute from both the respondents. Moreover, the Ex.P.1 to 6 which are UDR, complaint, Inquest and witness statement and post mortem report discloses that, the incident took place on 12.02.2018 while the deceased was driving the lorry TN-34-R-1056 and proceeding from Tiptur to Kannagal, Tamilnadu and when he reached Nelligere circle, Karabayalu village, Belur Hobli, Nagamangala, Mandya district on Bidar-Srirangapatna road, he sustained heart attack in the lorry and died. The Ex.P.1,3 and 5 UDR, inquest and post mortem report also discloses that, the death was caused due to heart attack during the course of employment under respondent no.1. After considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, I come to conclusion that the petitioners have proved that the deceased T.K.Selvaraj was an employee of respondent No.1 and he died during the course of and out of the employment in the incident. Hence, in view of the reasons stated above, Issue No.1 to 3 are answered in the Affirmative.
24. ISSUE NO. 4 : The petitioners have contended that at the time of death, deceased was aged about 52 years and he was hale and healthy. Further, they have claimed that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.30,000/- per SCCH-12 22 ECA No.78/2018 month. But they have not produced any material before this court in support of the income of the deceased.
25. The petitioners have stated that the deceased was 52 years at the time of the accident but, they have not produced any documents in support of it except aadhaar card. On perusal of the Ex.P.5 P.M.report and Ex.P.10 Aadhaar card of deceased which shows that, he was having age of 52 years at the time of accident and therefore, the age of the deceased is considered as 52 years by this Tribunal. However, taking into consideration of relevant period and age of the deceased, I am of the opinion that the deceased was a driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-34-R-1056 and his monthly income is considered by this Tribunal at Rs. 8,000/-.
26. Since it is a case of death, therefore, the compensation has to be determined as per Sec. 4 (1) (a) of the Employees Compensation Act 1923. As per the said provision, where the death results from the injury, an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased multiplied by the relevant factor.
27. In the above para, I have held that the wages of the deceased per month would be Rs.8,000/-. If we take 50% of the said wages, it comes to Rs.4,000/-. As per IV schedule, the proper factor to the age of 52 is 146.20 Therefore, the compensation amount would be 4,000X146.20=5,84,800/-. As such they are entitled for SCCH-12 23 ECA No.78/2018 Rs.5,84,800/-. They are also entitled for simple interest at the rate 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till the realization of entire amount.
28. As already discussed, the respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 and therefore, respondent No.2 is directed to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, in view of above discussion, I answer Issue No.4 accordingly.
29. ISSUE NO.5: In view of the above discussion on Issue No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/sec. 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,84,800/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its entire realization.
Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, respondent No.2 being the Insurer is hereby directed to deposit the award SCCH-12 24 ECA No.78/2018 amount within two months from the date of award.
Out of the compensation amount, petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased is entitled to receive 60% award amount and petitioner 2 being the major son of the deceased is entitled for 15% award amount and petitioner no.3 is a minor daughter is entitled for 25% in the award amount.
The petitioner no.1 & 2 shall deposit 50% of award amount as F.D. in their names in any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of three years from the date of deposit and remaining 50% amount shall be paid to them and the office is directed to collect the bank details of petitioner no.1 and 2 and release the 50% of amount by way of Electronic mode of payment i.e., RTGS/NEFT to the account of the petitioner no.1 and 2.
The entire award amount of minor petitioner no.3 shall be deposited in any Nationalized or Schedule Bank till she attain the age of majority.
After deposit of the above compensation amount the petitioners shall pay the requisite court fee as per rule 60 of above act for withdrawal of the same.
SCCH-12 25 ECA No.78/2018Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-. Draw Award Accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and computerized and printout taken by her, then corrected and pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of February 2022) (Mohamed Arifulla C.F) XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Saraswathi List of documents got marked for the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of UDR
Ex.P.2 : Copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 & 4 : Copy of Inquest report and
witness statement
Ex.P.5 : Post mortem report
Ex.P.6 : Death certificate of deceased
EX.P.7 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of
petitioner no.1:
Ex.P.8 & 9 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of
Petitioner no.2 and 3
Ex.P.10 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of
deceased
Ex.P.11 : Notarized copy of D.L. of deceased
Ex.P.12 : Final opinion of death report
Ex.P.13&14 : Notarized copy of study certificate of
petitioner no. 2 and 3
List of witnesses examined for the respondents:
R.W.1 : Hemendra Kartanti Simha M.V R.W.2 : Natarajan Marappa Goundar R.W.3 : Senthil Kumar SCCH-12 26 ECA No.78/2018 List of documents marked for the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 : Copy of policy
Ex.R.3 : RTI application
Ex.R.4 : Form No.24
Ex.R.5 : Permit detail extract
Ex.R.6 & 7 : R.C. details with authorization/permit
details
Ex.R.8 : E.receipt
Ex.R.9 : Authorization letter
Ex.R.10 : Form No.24
Ex.R.11 : True copy of national permit
Ex.R.12 : True copy of Tamilnadu State permit
(Mohamed Arifulla C.F)
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACMM, Bengaluru.