Claim of compensation should not be rejected summarily.

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 employed as a Car Driver with the 1st Opposite Party and was driving the car belonging to the 1st Opposite Party from Madras to Bangalore at Mambakkm Village, Sri Perambudur, a lorry dashed against the car and in the said accident, the deceased died on the spot. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation had come to the conclusion of dismissing the application as not maintainable on the assumption that the claim of compensation under the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, does not arise as the deceased Rajesh was not employed for the purpose of employers trade or business as mentioned in the definition of workman and the said decision is not correct. He would further submit in his argument that the said definition of workman under Section 2(n)(i) of the Act would include even casual labourers and the persons who are not connected with the trade or business of the employer since the said definition was amended as per Act 46/2000 and therefore, the Act being a beneficial Act, the said amendment should have been deemed to have come into force from the date of enactment and the cases pending on the date of amendment are benefitted by the said amendment and therefore, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is wrong in holding that the deceased Rajesh is not a workman under the definition of the Act, since he had not explained that he was appointed as a Driver for the purpose of trade or business of the First Opposite Party.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit in his argument that the deceased Rajesh was not a "workman" under the definition of Workmens Compensation Act, since he was not employed for the purpose of trade or business of the employer and on the date of accident viz., 13. 2000, the Workmens Compensation Act was not amended as per the Amendment Act 46/2000 since it had come into effect only on 12. 2000 and therefore, the previous definition of "workman" under Section 2(n)(i) of the Act is only applicable and the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation is quite right in holding that the deceased Rajesh was not a "workman" as defined under Section 2(n)(i) of the Act and the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation had rightly dismissed the petition. He has also further submitted that the appeal has been vexatiously filed and therefore, it has to be dismissed with costs. He would cite an authority in support of his contention reported in 2002 IV LLJ (Suppl) 332 (Galireddy P. v. C.R. Goud).

5. Considering the arguments advanced by either side, we have to find out whether the deceased Rajesh who drove the vehicle on the fateful day i.e 13. 2000 was attracted under the definition of workman as defined in Section 2(n)(i) of the Act