SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Mad) 4294

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH
A. Usha Rani & Another – Appellant
Versus
P. Dharmalingam & Another – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants :V. Mohan Choudary, Advocate. For the Respondents:R2, S. Udayakumar, Advocate.

Judgment :-

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-II, Chennai, in W.C.No.153 of 2000 on 27. 2001 in dismissing the claim of the deponents holding that the deceased person was not attracted under Section 2(n) (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as on the date of accident viz., 13. 2000.

2. The deceased Rajesh aged 20 years at the time of the accident was employed as a Driver of the car TSI-5402 owned by the 1st Opposite Party and insured with the 2nd Opposite Party, on a monthly salary of Rs.3000/-. On 13. 2000, when the said Rajesh was driving the said car from Thirunindravur to Bangalore and near Mambakkam Village, a vehicle coming in the opposite direction hit against the car and in the accident, the deceased Rajesh sustained multiple head injures and died on the spot. The deceased was not a workman but he was a causual labourer and was not in connection with the trade or business of the 1st Opposite Party.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants of the deceased person would submit in his argument that the accident had happened on 13. 2000 when the deceased Rajesh was empl
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top