The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship and the significance of a legal heirship certificate in workmen compensation cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act praying this Court to set aside the order dated 30.10.2008 made in W.C.No.141 of 2007 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 30.10.2008 made in W.C.No.141 of 2007 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai.

2. Brief facts of the claim petition are as follows: -

The deceased workman-Selvam was employed as a driver of the Tracker bearing Registration No.TN-63-E-4953 under the third respondent. On 03.02.2007, at about 08.45 hours, in Sivagangai- Manamadurai Railway line, when the deceased workman drove the said Tractor for loading coconut, met with an accident. In the impact, the deceased Workman sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and admitted as an inpatient, where he died. The deceased workman died during the course of employment under the third respondent. The third respondent insured his vehicle with the appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, both the appellant and the third respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The claimants are the wife and minor daughter of the deceased workman and they were sole dependants of deceased workman. Hence, they filed the above claim petition seeking compensation.

3. In the claim petition, the appellant/Insurance Company filed their counter, wherein, they denied the averment that the deceased was employed under the third respondent and during the course of employment, he died. Likewise, the wages and age of the deceased as pleaded in the petition are not admitted. Further, in the counter, it has been averred that there is no employee and employer relationship between the deceased and third respondent. Further, in the counter, it has been stated that the third respondent is the father of the deceased. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Before the lower Court, on the side of the claimants, one witness was examined as P.W.1 and six documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.6. On the side of the Insurance company, no witness was examined and no document was produced.

5. The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Madurai, after considering the oral and documentary evidences and arguments made on either side, allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,18,460/- as compensation to the claimants. Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed this present appeal.

6. At the time of admitting the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Question of Law, for consideration:-

“Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai erred in fastening the liability on the appellant, when the specific case is that the deceased is the son of the insured and not his workman?

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the deceased was the son of the insured and he was not a workman under the third respondent. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the deceased was a workman under the insured and he was paid wages by the insured/third respondent. In the absence of an employer – employee relationship between the deceased and the insured viz., the owner of the vehicle, the insurer, viz., the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. He would further submit that there is no legal heirships certificate produced before the Lower Court and the claimants wantonly have not disclosed the name of the deceased father. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company produced the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju and Ors. Vs National Insurance Company Ltd reported in 2007 (1) TN MAC 460. The relevant