JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of W.C. Act, to set aside the order in W.C.No.207 of 2002 dated 22.03.2010 on the file of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act (DCL), Trichy.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order passed in W.C.No.207 of 2002 dated 22.03.2010, on the file of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act(DCL), Trichy.

2. The appellant herein is the third respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the claimants and the respondents 3 to 5 herein are the respondents 1, 2 and 4 in the claim petition. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed a claim petition in W.C.No.207 of 2002, claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition in W.C.No.207 of 2002 is as follows:

The deceased Senthilkumar was working as the Manager in the Borewell company that belongs to the first respondent. On 14.08.2001, in the course of employment, the deceased travelled in a two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-28- W-6555 for collection of amount. At about 05.30 p.m., the deceased met with an accident, due to the accident, he sustained head injuries and died on the spot. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident is 28 years and he was earning Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) per month. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The second respondent is the insurer. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as compensation.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent therein is as follows:

The deceased Senthilkumar was not employed by the first respondent. There was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the first respondent. The deceased was working in T.S.Bore well company and the first respondent has no connection with T.S.Borewell Company. The accident was not during the course of employment. The age, income are all denied. The vehicle involved in the accident did not belong to the first respondent.

5. A brief substance of the counter filed by the third respondent therein is as follows:

The deceased was never employed by the third respondent. There was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and the third respondent. The third respondent is no way connected with the bore well company. The third respondent is an unnecessary party to the petition. The age, income are all denied. The claim is excessive

6. A brief substance of the counter filed by the fourth respondent therein is as follows:

There is no insurance policy between the first respondent and the fourth respondent. The first respondent failed to produce any documents regarding the accident. The deceased was responsible for the accident. Four persons travelled in the vehicle at the time of the accident, which is a violation of policy conditions. The deceased was only a temporary employee. The age, income of the deceased are denied. The claimants are not dependants of the deceased. The claim is excessive.

7. The second respondent was set exparte. Two witnesses were examined and three documents were marked, on the side of the petitioners. One witness was examined and no document was marked, on the side of the respondents. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,18,460/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty only) as compensation to be paid by the appellant. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is erroneous. The vehicle was insured with the fifth respondent. But the Labour Court failed to fasten the liability on the insurance company. Without assigning any reason, the Deputy Commissioner has fixed the liability on the appellant. The quantum is excessive. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to consider that there is no relationship o