An insurance company must fulfill its obligations under the policy unless there’s clear evidence of breach impacting liability.

ORDER

Challenging the order of the Joint Commissioner for Labour -II, [Workmen Compensation Commissioner-2 Court, Chennai-6], the 2^nd respondent-Insurance company preferred this appeal.

2. Before the Joint Commissioner of Labour-2, the claimants 1 to

3/respondents 1 to 3 herein preferred the claim petition in E.C.No.364 of 2012, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation for the death of 1^st petitioner’s son Dayalan who met with an accident in the course of employment under the 4^th respondent herein Suresh/R1 before the Joint Commissioner.

3. The parties are referred herein as per their litigative status before the Joint Commissioner. The brief facts are as follows:-

(a) The 1^st and 2^nd claimants are the parents and the 3^rd claimant is the sister of the deceased Dayalan. The claimants 1 and 2 contended that their son was employed as Loadman under the employer R1/Respondent No.4 herein, for a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- with daily allowance Rs.200/ and at the time of accident, his age was 21 years.

(b) On 21.03.2012, at about 2 O clock, the tractor which belongs to R1/4^th respondent herein was loaded with bricks and the deceased travelled in the said tractor as loadman. When the vehicle was going near Arambakkam Police Station, due to the accident, he died. Since he died in the course of employment, the claimants claimed compensation from 1 and 2 respondents, stating that the vehicle belonged to the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent. (c) The 1^st respondent is the owner of the vehicle. He remained exparte.

The 2^nd respondent-insurance company contested the case stating that the deceased was not an employee under the 1^st respondent and there is no employer-employee relationship between them. Apart from that, accident did not occur as alleged by the claimants. As per the police complaint, at the time of the alleged accident, deceased Dayalan has driven the tractor. However, the claimants claimed that he was employed as Loadman. Further the tractor was also not used for agriculture purpose at the time of alleged accident and the same was utilised for commercial purpose. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to claim compensation as they prayed for and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Even if the accident was true, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent/appellant herein is not liable to pay compensation.

4. Both parties adduced evidence before the trial court. On the side of claimants, P.W.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.10 were marked. On the side of the 2^nd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R.1 to R.7 were marked and Court side witnesses C.W.1 and C.W.2 were examined and documents C.1 and C.2 were marked.

5. Considering all the evidence, Joint Commissioner has held that as per the averments in the claim petition, on the date of the accident, Dayalan driven the vehicle but the 2^nd respondent-Insurance company objected the same stating that the deceased Dayalan has not possessed any driving licence. So the burden is upon the claimants to establish that the deceased was holding valid licence. To that effect, the witnesses from the RTO office was examined as C.W.1 and 2 and their evidence discloses that as per the official record, there was no driving licence in the name of Dayalan in whose jurisdiction he was living.

6. The Joint Commissioner held that the deceased Dayalan was not possessing driving licence. But P.W.2 Munuswamy, in his evidence stated that