- (1.) THE complainant in O.P. No. 87/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Namakkal, is the appellant herein. The facts leading to the appeal lie in a norrow compass.
(2.) ACCORDING to the complainant, her son Arivazhagan was driving the lorry from Namakkal to Gujarat and an accident took place at Theevattipatty of Omalur Taluk in Salem District and Arivazhagan died in the accident. This was in the course of his employment and use of the said vehicle. Theevattipatty Police registered FIR. Post -mortem was conducted in Omalur Government Hospital. Death was reported and registered in Taluk office earlier. The vehicle was insured with the opposite party for Rs. 50,000 and an additional premium of Rs. 90 was also paid. The policy amount was not paid. A notice was issued on 7.2.2000. There was no reply nor was any payment made. There was thus deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party necessitating the filing of the complaint. The defence set up was that there was absolutely no proof that the vehicle which Arivazhagan was driving met with any accident that unless an accident involving the vehicle was established in which the said Arivazhagan died, it was not possible for the opposite party to pay any compensation to his mother, the complainant.
(3.) THE District Forum accepted the case of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed. Mr. Kannan, learned Counsel from the Salem Bar appeared before us and vehemently submitted that every presumption should be made that Arivazhagan died in an accident involving the vehicle that it was in the course of employment that an extra premium had been paid and in such circumstances, the repudiation by the opposite party was not well -founded. Counsel further submitted that there was a case filed before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation and an award for Rs. 2,00,000 was also passed by the Additional Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation. Counsel submitted that this was a clear case where Arivazhagan had died in an accident involving the vehicle and therefore compensation should have been awarded.;