COMMON JUDGMENT

This appeal has been directed against the order dated 03.11.2022 made in E.C.No.129 of 2019 on the file of the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai. Simultaneously, the Cross Objection has been filed seeking enhancement of the award in respect of quantum of compensation awarded in the above said order.

2.The facts in brief:

The vehicle belongs to the first respondent bearing Registration No.TN 57A 7569, TATA 709 Mini truck. The deceased Balamurugan was a load man in the vehicle. On 21.06.2019, the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a load man for loading and unloading vegetable boxes. At about 8.30 p.m. the driver of the vehicle driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and tried to claimb sand portion. Because of the rash and negligent driving he lost the control. The vehicle capsized and the deceased died on the spot. He was aged about 19 at the time of occurrence and getting Rs.20,000/- as monthly salary. A case was registered on the file of Sindhupatti police Station against the driver of the first respondent's vehicle in the main petition. The first respondent's vehicle was insured with second respondent. Claiming compensation amount of Rs.40,00,000/- the claim application was filed.

3.The owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The insurance company filed a counter stating that the deceased was a load man in the vehicle under the employment of the first respondent. He travelled in the vehicle as un-authorized passenger on the backside of the vehicle. Since there was no employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the first respondent, he is not entitled for claiming compensation.

4.The Commissioner of Labour recorded a finding that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as a load man under the employment of the first respondent. Regarding the compensation amount the monthly salary was taken as Rs.8,000/-. Since he was aged about 20. The relevant factor is taken as 224.00 and awarded Rs.8,96,000/- towards loss of income. Rs.5,000/- was added as funeral expenses. The total compensation amount was fixed at Rs.9,01,000/-. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the above said amount on behalf of the insurer. Against which, the appeal is preferred by the Insurance company.

5.The cross objection was made by the claimant, aggrieved over the quantum of compensation.

6.The learned counsel for the Cross applicant would submit that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger.

7.But, there is no evidence on record to show that he was in employment under first respondent as load man. There was no proper finding by the Labour Commissioner as to the relationship; So the matter must be remitted to the Labour Commissioner for fresh consideration.

8.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that PW2 has spoken about the employer and employee relationship between the first respondent and the deceased and he was also referring to Rule 240 to 260 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules and submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased travelled in violation of Rules 242 to 261. So no interference is called for.

9.But in respect of the assessment of compensation, they would submit that the minimum wages fixed as Rs.8,000/-. So, later revised by the State Government in G.O. No.120 (2D) dated 31.12.2018 as Rs.

14,244/-. They enclosed the concerned Government Order.

10.That Government Order was passed by exercise of the power conferred upon the State Government as per the provisions of the minimum wages Act, which is not relevant to the claims under the Workmen Compensation Act. We will discuss about that issue later. 11.Now coming to the main issue of the relationship between the first respondent and the deceased. It has to be decided only on the basis of the available records. Since, the first respondent remained exparte not only before the trial Court, but also before this Court, there is no proper suppo