The burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish that the accident occurred during the course of the deceased's employment, and the lack of direct evidence may impact the validity of the compensation claim.

JUDGMENT

Sandipkumar C. More, J. - The appellants i.e. the original claimants have challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned 2nd Labour Judge, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') on 11.10.2004 in Application (W.C.) No. 72/1997, whereby the claim for getting compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act by the appellants - claimants in respect of accidental death of one Suresh @ Chabu Sase, has been rejected.

2. The background facts can be summarised as under :

Appellant No.1 is the widow of deceased Suresh whereas appellant No.2 Sonali is his daughter and appellant Nos.3 and 4 are his parents. The appellants - claimants before the learned trial Court contended that the deceased Suresh was under employment of present respondent No.1 as a driver on truck bearing registration No. MH-14-6429, which was insured with respondent No.2 - Insurance Company. The deceased was getting salary of Rs. 2,000/- per month. It is the case of the appellants that on 25.05.1997 the deceased, under the direction of respondent No.1, had gone to Pathardi to bring some goods at Ahmednagar. However, at about 1.30 a.m. the said truck overturned near the house of one Mehboob Dadabhai Shaikh in the vicinity of Mali Babhulgaon village. In the said accident the deceased sustained fracture of ribs and died on the spot. Thus, the appellants claimed that as the deceased was under the employment of respondent No.1, they were entitled to get compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Accordingly, they claimed total compensation of Rs. 3,20,355/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum inclusive of the amount of penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,06,785/- from the respondents under joint and several liability.

3. Respondent No.1 i.e. owner, despite service, failed to file written statement, whereas respondent No.2 - Insurance Company vide it's written statement opposed the claim by contending that the deceased was not having valid driving licence. The Insurance Company also claimed that at the relevant time the said truck was carrying marriage party of 20 to 22 persons in breach of the terms and conditions of insurance policy. The learned trial Court, after conducting the trial and considering the entire material on record, dismissed the claim of the appellants. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants - claimants submits that respondent No.1 - owner did not file written statement and respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, despite filing written statement, did not examine any witness in support of it's contention. He pointed out that the driving licence of the deceased on record clearly indicates that it was valid for driving heavy goods vehicle since there was an endorsement on the same to that effect. He pointed out that the Insurance Company did not examine any witness to support it's contention that at the relevant time the truck was carrying the marriage party. He further pointed out that the insurance policy had already covered the risk of 2 plus 4 persons including the driver, and therefore, the rejection of claim at the hands of learned trial Court on that ground is totally erroneous. According to him, the evidence of appellants - claimants remained unchallenged, and therefore, the learned trial Court should have granted compensation to the appellants. He relied on the following judgments.

(i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Lehru and others 2003 (2) G.L.H. 256 S.C.

(ii) Narayan Shahadu Patil and others vs Kalashri Vijay Dhamke, 2008 (1) M.L.J. 88

(iii) Mangenese Ore (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and another 2008 (2) M.L.J. 693

(iv) Vivekanand Raghunath Naik Gaonkar vs Vinayak Nilba Naik Gaonkar, 2008 (4) M.L.J. 774

(v) Sarla Verma and others vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (5) M.L.J. (SC) 775

(vi) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mohammad Nasir & anr 2010 (1) M.L.J. 312

(vii) Municipal Corporation Amravati vs Pratibha Kashinath Gajbhiye and another, 2012 (1) M.L.J.