The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the insurance company to compensate the claimants under the Workmen Compensation Act, despite policy violations and denial of workmen status.

1. The allegations found in the petition filed under Section 19(1) (a) of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923 are as follows:

.1. (i) The petitioners are parents of one Senthil @ Senthilkumar, who was employed as an Auto Driver under one Sampath @ Sampathkumar. The first and second opposite parties are legal heirs of Sampath @ Sampathkumar. On 8. 1998 at about 1.00 p.m. while the deceased Senthilkumar drove the Auto TN 33 J 1573 from Palani to Dharapuram Road, near Thulukkanoor, hit on the back of a Bullock Cart in an unavoidable circumstance and in the accident Senthil @ Senthilkumar died at the spot.

.The applicants are dependents of the income of the deceased. The deceased was aged about 22 years and was earning not less than Rs.3,000/-p.m. The vehicle owner Sampath also died in the accident, whose legal heirs are first and second respondents. Hence a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-is claimed and both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

.2. The averments contained in the Counter filed by the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are as follows:

.These opposite parties do not admit the relationship between Senthil @ Senthilkumar with Sampath @ Sampathkumar. The particulars as regards the age of the deceased, manner of accident and wages of the deceased are denied.

.3. In the objection filed by the third Opposite Party, following are found:

.Senthil @ Senthilkumar did not come under the definition "workmen" and he is not entitled to get benefits under Workmens Compensation Act and he was only a casual labourer and his employment with the second respondent was totally unconnected with the business of the vehicle owner. Therefore the claim of compensation by the legal heirs of the deceased Senthil @ Senthilkumar is not maintainable. There has been a clear infringement of policy conditions and the age of the deceased, earning power and income are not admitted. Hence the petition has to dismissed.

4. The authority below viz., The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, allowed the application by directing the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to deposit a sum of Rs.2,21,370/-within thirty days, in default the same shall be recovered along with 12% interest from the date of death till the date of deposit. The Deputy Commissioner has arrived at the compensation by adopting the formula under mentioned:

2,000.00 x 50 x 221.37

---------------------- = Rs.2,21,370

100 Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/applicants preferred the present Civil Revision Petition to fix the liability as against the third respondent/Insurance Company by setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem.

5. Mr.N. Manoharan, learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that inasmuch as the Insurance Company could not be absolved from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants as per law, fastening liability on the first and second opposite parties alone is not at all sustainable. It is his further contention that in spite of allegations with respect to the violation of permit and policy conditions, the Insurance Company is in law bound to compensate the claimants.

6. Per contra, Mr.K.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel for third respondent would submit that there is no wrong in the findings of the rendered by the Commissioner in view of the violation of policy condition and there is no need to disturb the same.

7. The F.I.R. as to the accident was given by one of the inmates of the ill-fated auto. It is stated therein that on 8. 98 at about 1.00 p.m. while Senthil was driving Auto, Sampath was sitting by his side in the front seat and 8 other persons were travelling by the auto, that the said Senthil @ Senthilkumar, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the back side of a double bullock cart, which was proceeding in front of the auto, in which Senthil @ Senthilkumar breathed his last on the spot and Sampath @ Sampthkumar was critically injured and thereafter he died and that othe