The court determined that the deceased, an auto driver, was in an employer-employee relationship while operating the vehicle, making the insurance liable for compensation under the E.C. Act rather than the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the Fair and Decretal Order dated October 21, 2019 passed by 'the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Tirupattur' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.439 of 2013, the second respondent in the said Original Petition namely New India Assurance Company Ltd., has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be denoted as per their array before the Tribunal.

PETITIONER'S CASE

3. The first petitioner is the wife, the second to fourth petitioners are the minor children and the fifth petitioner is the mother of the deceased -Govindaraj.

3.1. The accident occurred on February 11, 2012. At the time of accident, the deceased was an Auto driver employed under the first respondent and he was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month. On the fateful day, at about 01.45 p.m., the deceased was driving the Autorickshaw bearing Registration No.TN-23-BY-1969 owned by the first respondent in the course of his employment, on Tirupattur - Alangayam main road towards Alangayam. While nearing Kalarur bus stop, the deceased met with an accident and the Autorickshaw capsized.

3.2. In the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and passed away on the spot. The deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Tirupattur for postmortem. With regard to the accident, a First Information Report (F.I.R.) for offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered by Tirupattur (Rural) Police in Crime No.87 of 2012 and the same is pending for investigation. Since the accident took place in the course of employment under the first respondent and since the Autorickshaw was insured with the second respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE

4. The first respondent filed counter denying all the averments stated in the Original Petition. According to the first respondent, the accident happened solely due to the rash and negligent act of the deceased. On July 2, 2009 itself, the Autorickshaw driven by the deceased and involved in the accident was sold off to G.Venkatesan, the third respondent by duly signing in the delivery note, transfer form and other documents. But the third respondent failed to effect name transfer. Further, in turn, the third respondent had sold the Autorickshaw to the deceased. This first respondent has never even seen the deceased. The first respondent came to know about the accident only on receipt of notice from the Court. The Autorickshaw is insured with the second respondent. Stating so, the first respondent sought to dismiss the Original Petition.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE

5. The second respondent filed counter denying the allegations made by the petitioners in the Original Petition. The second respondent contended that the petitioners have to prove the income of the deceased, his contribution to the family and dependency of the petitioners. The deceased - Govindaraj drove the Auto bearing Registration No.TN23- BY-1969 in a rash and negligent manner and only due to the same, the Auto capsized. The contents of the F.I.R. reveal that in order to avoid collision with an oncoming Car, the deceased turned his Autorickshaw to the left and consequently the Autorickshaw capsized. No suc