JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed challenging the Award dated 26.03.2018 made in E.C.No.598 of 2015 (Old W.C.No.640 of 2014) by the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation Court, Coonoor, Nilgiris.

2 The appellant is the Insurance Company, respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants and the fifth respondent is employer of the deceased.

3 The respondents 1 to 4/claimants filed claim petition in E.C.No.598 of 2015 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of Palanisamy, who is husband and father of the first and second claimants respectively and son of the third and fourth claimants and fifth respondent is the employer of the deceased.

4 The claim petition was contested by both the appellant/Insurance Company and the fifth respondent employer of the deceased. They filed separate counter denying all the allegations apart from disputing the liability.

5 Before the Commissioner, on the side of the claimants P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was produced. On behalf of the employer of the deceased, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.

6 The Commissioner for Employees Compensation, on an assessment of entire evidence on record, fixed liability on the appellant/Insurance Company and awarded a sum of Rs.7,72,590 including Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses as compensation along with 12% interest and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the award amount.

Challenging the liability, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

7 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that it is alleged by the claimant that the deceased, who is the employee of the fifth respondent died during the course of employment as Driver of the Vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 34 Q 3224, which was insured with the appellants. It is further claimed that the deceased died due to poisonous snake bite during the course of employment. But the claimants failed to prove the cause and place of death of the deceased. There was no FIR and the body of the deceased was not subjected to postmortem to prove the cause of death. There is no report to prove the death of the deceased and the same had taken place during the course of employment. In the absence of same, fixing liability on the appellant/Insurance Company is perverse.

7.1 Even the employer viz. the fifth respondent has stated that he did not know the exact place where the deceased sustained injuries and the Commissioner also not given any clear finding with respect to place and cause of the death. Further at the time of accident, the deceased did not posses valid driving license. The claimants produced license of the deceased, which is permitted only for LMV, whereas, at the time of accident, the deceased driven the Tractor, for which he did not possess valid driving license. Therefore the appellant/Insurance company is not liable pay the compensation.

8 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4/claimants would submit that while the deceased was removing the corn stick (Chola thattai), which was stuck between the tires of the Tractor, a poisonous snake bit the deceased and he immediately was taken to Rasipuram Government Hospital, but, the deceased succumbed to the snake bite. At the time of death, the deceased was working under the fifth respondent, whose vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. Even though FIR was not registered and the body of the deceased was not subjected to postmortem, the fact remains that the deceased went for job and during the course of employment due to poisonous snake bite, the deceased died. Even the reply received through RTI would clearly reveal that the deceased was admitted in the Rasipuram Government Hospital and due to emergency situation, the Hospital authority could not inform the police and the deceased died in the Hospital. The employer of the deceased did not deny the employment of the deceased wi