Legal heirs must establish their relationship to claim compensation, and incidents occurring during employment may necessitate different legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the Award dated

03.10.2011 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1010 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1(Incharge)), Tirunelveli.

2. The petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.1010 of 2008 are the appellants herein. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle, and the second respondent is the Insurance Company of the vehicle. The respondents 3 to 5 are the alleged wife and children of the deceased Murugan.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties as arrayed in M.C.O.P.No.1010 of 2008 are adopted hereunder.

4. The brief facts of the case:

The deceased Murugan was engaged as loadman for loading grain bags in a lorry. On 22.04.2008 at about 1.00 a.m., the deceased Murugan and two other loadmen were loading grain bags into a halted lorry bearing registration number TN 59 D 6089 near Veerapandiapuram Madam. Whileso suddenly loaded bag slipped out from its place and fell on the deceased Murugan from the top of the lorry. The deceased Murugan sustained multiple injuries and he was taken to Government Hospital, Kovilkpatti, then he was referred to TVMC Hospital on 25.04.2008 and died due to injuries. FIR was registered U/s.174 of Cr.P.C. against the driver of the first respondent. The deceased was earning Rs.300/- per day and was maintaining the petitioners, who are his wife and children. The lorry bearing registration number TN 59 D 6089 belonged to the first respondent and the same was insured with the second respondent. Hence, the petitioners filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. The 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company objected the claim petition by contending that the mishap took place while discharging his work as loadman. The FIR contents revealed that the deceased Murugan and two others were working under one Kasi Reddiar. The incident was happened while loading grain bags. The accident was not taken place by any negligence on the part of the first respondent’s driver. So, the police dropped the action and sent the final report. There was an employer and employee relationship between the said Kasi Reddiar and the deceased Murugan. The employer alone is liable to pay the compensation. The employer was not added as party.

The petitioners are not the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased Murugan. The third respondent is the wife of the deceased Murugan and the respondents 4 and 5 are his children, according to the final report in Crime No.35 of 2008. The petitioners have chosen the wrong forum. So, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Before the Tribunal, both side adduced oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked three documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. On the second respondent's side, the official of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Policy copy was marked as Ex.R.1.

7. After hearing both sides and after considering the evidences, the Tribunal has held that the accident was not taken place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent’s lorry and also the petitioners have not proved that they are the wife and children of the deceased Murugan, so the petitioners are not entitled to compensation and accordingly dismissed the petition by its order, dated 03.10.2011.

8. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners/claimants preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9. Heard both sides and perused the records in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants has mainly argued that the accident was taken place at the time of loading foodgrain bags in the first respondent’s lorry bearing