IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.01.2020 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1788 of 2016 The New India Assurance Company Limited., No.770, Anna Road, Chennai – 600 002. ...Petitioner vs.

1. M.Praveena

2. M.Deepeth (Minor)

3. M.Narayanammal

4. Mr.Harichandra Raju ...Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of W.C. Act 1923 to set aside the Order dated 13.04.2016 passed in E.C.No.8 of 2015 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation – I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I) Chennai – 600 006 and to dismiss the application filed for compensation by the respondents 1 to 3 against the appellant.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Ramesh Babu For Respondents : --

O R D E R

The present appeal has been preferred challenging the Order of the Workman Compensation Depety Commissioner – I dated 13.04.2016 in E.C.No.8 of 2015.

2. The sum and substance of the case is that the deceased was employed under one Harichandra Raju, who is the fourth respondent herein and the first respondent before the authority concerned. While cleaning the drainage on 04.07.2014, around 5.30 p.m., the deceased inhaled poisonous gas, admitted in Appolo Hospital and on account of the incident arising out of and in the course of his employment, he passed away on 10.07.2014. After postmortem at Stanley Hospital, body was returned and final rites were done. According to the legal representatives of the deceased, before the authority, the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs.6000/- per month and was 40 years old on the date of his demise. It is further submitted that there was an insurance policy by the appellant herein, policy bearing No.710404/36/14/01/00000054 and it was in force from 05.06.2014 to 04.09.2014 and the dependants are entitled to the amount of compensation apart from the medical expenses incurred by the family of the deceased.

3. The first opposite party before the first respondent has stated that the deceased was employed under him and that there was an accident on 04.07.2014, while the deceased was cleaning drainage and poisonous gas was inhaled by the deceased which had caused the death of deceased and that he has taken a policy which is a valid one and that the first opposite party before the authority was paying a sum of Rs.8000/- per month as wages to the deceased.

4. The second opposite party before the authority, who is an insurance company, has contended that there was no employer employee relationship between the deceased and first respondent before the authority and that the injuries sustained by the deceased has not been established that the accident arise out of and in the course of employment and as there was no death on account of inhalation of poisonous gas as stated by the legal representatives of the deceased, there is no need for the insurance company to pay any compensation much less one demanded by the claimants.

5. The authority after taking evidence, based on exhibits, more particularly the First Information Report and the policy which was marked as Ex.P.5 and which was valid from 05.06.2014 to 04.09.2014, awarded a compensation of Rs.7,41,680/- apart from a direction to pay a sum of Rs.7,52,927/-for the medical expenses incurred by the deceased family.

6. Aggrieved by the Order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed raising two grounds. Firstly, though the employment was disputed, the authority has rendered a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with. The first applicant before the authority was the father of the deceased and that a policy was taken which was valid for a period of three months and the same was in force on the date of the accident and that the death of the deceased had occurred while the deceased was in employment. However, policy has been taken restricting the premium for a sum of Rs.4000/- per month and even though as an employee he is entitled to compensation by taking into account the wages at Rs.8000/- per month which is preva