The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Workmen's Compensation Act to determine compensation and the liability of the insurance company under technical grounds.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, to set aside the award of Rs.4,33,060/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand and Sixty only) passed in W.C.No.313 of 2009, dated 09.04.2012, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirappalli.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/third respondent, challenging the compensation awarded on certain counts by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), at Trichirappalli in W.C.No.313 of 2009 dated 09.04.2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed herein as per the rank in W.C.No.313 of 2009.

3. The factual matrix of the present case, briefly stated, are as under:- This is a fatal case. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased M.Ramar and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased Ramar, the petitioners 4 and 5 are parents of the Ramar and the sixth respondent is the minor sister of the deceased. On 10.08.2009, while the said Ramar was driving the lorry bearing registration No.TN-50-D-2023 and was proceeding from Musiri to Trichy, at Aiyampalayam, the said lorry dashed as against another lorry bearing registration No.TN-30-C-8689, which came in the opposite direction. As the result of collision, the deceased sustained fatal injuries all over the body and was admitted in Government Hospital, Musiri for first aid and thereafter, shifted to Government Headquarters hospital, Tiruchirappalli and he died there. At the time of accident, he was 26 years old and according to the petitioners, he was drawing a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month along with batta and other allowance. Musiri Police registered a case in Crime No.444 of 2009 with respect to the said accident. Seeking a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death, the petitioners have filed the claim petition.

4. The first respondent is the employer of the deceased, the second respondent is the owner of the vehicle as per the insurance policy and the third respondent is the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured. The second respondent had filed a counter refuting each and every allegations set forth in the claim petition.

5. The learned Commissioner has framed three issues. One witness was examined on the side of the petitioner as P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. One witness R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. The respondents 1 and 2 were called absent and set exparte. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and arguments submitted by respective parties, the learned Tribunal concluded that the deceased died during the course of his employment as the driver of the first respondent. The learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that Ex.R1 RC book of the lorry involved, which would reveal that the second respondent had sold the said lorry bearing registration No.TN-50-D-2023 on 24.06.2009 in favour of the first respondent. Hence, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that the deceased was working under the first respondent during the course of accident. Though the petitioners claimed that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.5,000/- per month, on the basis of Minimum Wages Act fixed by the Tamil Nadu Government, the learned Commissioner fixed the monthly income of the deceased driver as Rs.3466/- + Rs.1,268/- (DA) and arrived at Rs.4,734/- per month. However, under Section 4 of maximum income as fixed by the Workmen's Compensation Act being Rs.4,000/-, the learned Tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.4,000/-. On the basis of Ex.P5 i.e. Driving licence, the learned Commissioner decided that the deceased was 26 years old at the time of accident and calculated the head of loss of dependency as Rs.4,30,560/- [50/100x4000x215.28 (relevant factor)]. Further the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards fu