The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Workmen Compensation Act to determine liability for compensation in cases of work-related injuries and deaths.

1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in CMA (MD).No.1756 of 2010, against the order passed in W.C.No.223 of 2007, on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner, who is the son of the deceased Pappayi has filed a claim in W.C.No.223 of 2007, claiming a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/-from the respondents, for the death of the said Pappayi, who had died due to the injuries sustained by her when she was doing her duty in the course of employment under the 1st respondent. It was submitted that the deceased Pappayi was working as a coolie under the 1st respondent and she was doing her work at the building construction being erected for "Loom Tex Exports" at Palvarpatti and getting a daily wage of Rs.160/-. On 14.07.2007, at about 12.30 p.m., when the (deceased) Pappayi was doing her work in the building construction site, she fell down from the supporting plat form erected around the construction and sustained severe injuries an her head and all over her body. She was immediately admitted at S.V.Logo hospital, wherein she was given first aid and treated as an inpatient but inspite of medical treatment, she succumbed to her injuries at 02.30 p.m., on the same day. At that time of accident the deceased was aged 50 years. The occurrence of the accident was intimated to the respondents through a lawyer's notice dated 10.08.2007, which was received by them on 14.08.2007, but no compensation had been paid by them. Hence, the petitioner has filed the claim as against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the employer and the insurer respectively.

3. The 1st respondent in his counter has submitted that the deceased Pappayi had been working as a coolie under their employment for a few months and that on 14.07.2007, she had fallen down from the supporting plank erected at a height of 10 feet, due to her negligence. It was submitted that the Civil of their firm had immediately admitted her at Logo Hospital at Karur and that she received treatment but inspite of treatment, she had died. It was submitted than a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards funeral expenses and a gratuity of a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 14.07.2007 and that a sum of Rs.15,000/-was paid on 18.07.2007 as gratuity. It was submitted that a total amount of Rs.35,000/- was paid by them to the petitioner and that the petitioner had also given a receipt and an agreement deed. It was submitted that the 1st respondent had also promised to get the petitioner additional compensation from their insurer. It was submitted that the worker in their firm were covered under a policy of insurance with the 2nd respondent.

4. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was also submitted that as per the policy condition, the details regarding worker's name, age and work allotted to them should be given by the 1st respondent and as the 1st respondent had not furnished these details, the contention that the deceased had been covered under a valid policy of insurance was not acceptable. It was submitted that the deceased was aged about 70 years and as such she could not be taken to be a coolie under the employment of the 1st respondent. The averments in the claim that the deceased had died due to injuries sustained by her in alleged accident on 14.07.2007, was also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. In their additional counter, it was pointed out that the 1st respondent had taken a "group personal accident policy" extending coverage to 275 work persons All Over India, engaged in their construction activities and that the 1st respondent had to furnish a claim petition to them and receive compensation. It was submitted that as the 1st respondent had not given any details regarding the accident, they cannot be held liable to pay any compensation. I