D. Hariparanthaman, J.

One Alagarsamy filed W.C. No. 45/2000 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirappalli, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him while he worked as a driver in a Lorry that was owned by the 4th respondent in this appeal who was the 1st respondent in the claim petition. The 2nd respondent in the claim petition is the insurance company which is the appellant herein.

2. According to the claimant, on 11.07.1999, while he went on the top of the aforesaid Lorry to see whether the load position is proper, he fell down and sustained fracture of right thigh and injuries all over the body. He claimed 100% disability as he could not again do the work of Lorry driver, which he did earlier. He was aged 40 years at the time of accident. He was in receipt of Rs.2,000/- as wages and Rs.1,000/- as batta. He claimed compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-. After the filing of the claim petition, he died and the legal heirs of Alagarsamy were brought on record as claimants. The claim is for the injuries suffered by Alagarsamy and it is not for the death of Alagarsamy.

3. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thiru.Alagarsamy got examined as a first witness and four other witnesses were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the side of the insurance company, one witness was examined and no documents were marked.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour holding that the claimant Thiru. Alagarsamy suffered 100% disability and he could not drive the lorry after the accident, awarded compensation of Rs.1,79,604/-. The Doctor gave the disability certificate that the claimant suffered 70% disability. However, the doctor deposed that he could not do the work of the driver which he did earlier. The evidence of the doctor was considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and upon personal examination of the claimant, he recorded the following findings:-

xxxxx

5. Now the appeal is filed by the appellant insurance company which has been admitted on 03.12.2012 on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Has not the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul, misdirected itself in law in holding that the claimants are entitled to seek relief under the Workmen's Compensation Act, overlooking the material facts that the death of Azharsamy had occurred on 06.03.2001, whereas the accident itself had taken place on 11.07.1999, nearly after one and half years, after the alleged occurrence and not substantiated by any medical evidence that the injured claimant died as a result of the injuries sustained in the alleged accident?

2. Has not the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dindigul, misdirected itself in law in making the appellant/Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to respondents 2 to 4 totally overlooking the whole claim had abated as per the common law rule "Actio Personalis Moratorium cum person" in that the cause of action for personal injuries, being founded on Tort, and not independent of and therefore on such person's death, does not survive for prosecution?"

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. The first question of law that is raised by the appellant is that there could not be any claim for the death of the claimant as the accident took place on 11.07.1999 and the Alagarsamy died on 06.03.2001 after 1 years. No medical evidence was let in that the death was due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour should not have awarded any compensation.

8. In my view, there is a total misconception of the appellant on the whole issue. Thiru.Alagarsamy filed the claim petition for the injuries suffered by him and the claim petition was not filed by the legal heirs for the death of Alagarsamy. Thiru.Alagarsamy claimed compensation that he could not do the work of driver which he did earlier. Hence, he suffered total disablement. The same was accepted b