Judgment : 1. The applicants have filed compensation petition in W.C.No.143 of 1999, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, against the appellant herein and employer stating that the 1st applicant's husband Murugesan was employed with the 1st opposite party as Assistant. On 27.01.1997, when the (deceased) Murugesan was proceeding on his TVS 50 moped bearing Registration No.TN41-C-6330, which belongs to the 1st opposite party / employer and while he was proceeding on the Pollachi Main road, the vehicle was involved in an accident and as a result, the (deceased) had sustained injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the compensation petition has been filed. 2. The 2nd opposite party had filed a counter statement and resisted the compensation petition. The respondents stated that the said TVS 50 moped is not a commercial vehicle or public carrier to be used for business purpose namely Coconut business. Further, no separate premium had been paid to the insurer to operate the vehicle as a commercial vehicle. The policy extends coverage only to Motor Vehicles and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 3. On considering the averments of both parties, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had framed three issues namely: (1) Whether the deceased Murugesan covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act? Whether he had expired in the course of employment while doing his duty under his employer? (2) What is the quantum of compensation which the applicants are entitled to receive? and (3) Who is liable to pay compensation? 4. On the side of the applicants, the 1st applicant was examined as PW1 and 3 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P3 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Postmortem report; and Ex.P3-Insurance Policy. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined and one document namely the model form of claim petition has been marked as Ex.R1. PW1 had adduced evidence, that her husband Murugesan was an employee under the 1st opposite party for the past 4 years. His employer i.e. 1st opposite party asked her husband to go to Meenakshipuram to find out whether coconuts are available for business. On his direction, when her husband was proceeding on the TVS moped bearing Registration No.TN-41-C-6360. On 27.01.1997, on the Pollachi Main road and at that point of time, the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-41-9115, dashed against the moped. His employer i.e. 1st opposite party asked her husband to go to Meenakshipuram to find out whether coconuts are available for business. On his direction, when her husband was proceeding on the TVS moped bearing Registration No.TN-41-C-6360. On 27.01.1997, on the Pollachi Main road and at that point of time, the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-41-9115, dashed against the moped. As a result, her husband Murugesan and another person Nadhamanickam, who was travelling along with her husband had sustained injuries and that her husband died due to the grievous injuries. PW1 further adduced evidence that her husband was paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- as monthly salary and his age was 35 years at the time of accident. The 2nd and 3rd claimants are the children of the deceased. 5. RW1, had adduced evidence that the deceased Murugesan was working as Coolie under the 1st opposite party. When he was proceeding on the TVS moped on the Pollachi Main road, the Tractor coming in the opposite direction had dashed against the motorcyclist. The said motorcycle is a private carrier and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 6. On recording the evidence of the witnesses and on scrutinising the documents of both parties, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had awarded a sum of Rs.1,98,060/-(50/100X2,000X197.06)+(Rs.1,000/-for funeral expenses) as compensation. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. The learned counsel argued that the applicants had not established that the deceased was a Workman as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Further, the deceased and 1st opposite party were not related as employee and employer. Therefore, since the employer and employee relationship has not been established, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Company had issued a legal notice to produce the wage register of employee and the same has not been complied with by the employer. As such, no prima facie case has been made out in the said accident. The learned counsel further submits that the moped is not a public service vehicle or public carrier and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as per the policy conditions. Further, no additional premium had been paid to extend coverage of insurance. As such, no prima facie case has been made out in the said accident. The learned counsel further submits that the moped is not a public service vehicle or public carrier and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation as per the policy conditions. Further, no additional premium had been paid to extend coverage of insurance. In this case, employer-employee relationship has not been established and this case cannot be proceeded with before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the applicants remedy lies only before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the 1st opposite party is the employer of the deceased Murugesan. On his instructions, the said Murugesan had proceeded to Pollachi to find out the availability of coconuts for business purposes. Further, the employer himself had handed over his TVS moped to go to Pollachi. Accordingly, when the deceased was proceeding towards Pollachi on 27.01.1997 and at that point of time, the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-41-9115, coming in the opposite direction had dashed against him. As a result, he had succumbed to his injuries. It is clearly proved that the employer entrusted the motorcycle to the employee with the instruction to find out the availability of coconuts for business purposes, since the employer is doing wholesale coconut business. The employee was paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. The death had been caused during the course of employment and therefore employer-employee relationship had been established and it was also proved that while the deceased was operating the employer's vehicle, it had been involved in the accident and therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 8. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on scrutinising the impugned award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding employer-employee relationship and that the accident had occurred during the course of employment under the employer, as is seen from the evidence of applicants and F.I.R. This Court is of the further view that as per the evidence of the applicants, the employer had handed over his vehicle to the employee, with instruction to go to Pollachi to find out the availability of coconuts for his business purposes. While the employee was proceeding on the employer's motorcycle, the incident had occurred. As such, this Court holds that the accident had happened in the course of employment of the (deceased) under the 1st opposite party's vehicle. This Court is of the further view that the Tribunal had assessed the compensation on the basis of age and income. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal. Hence, the impugned award is confirmed. 9. Now, the applicants excluding the minor applicants are permitted to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest, if any, lying in the credit of W.C.No.143 of 1999, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order and after identification of the applicants by their counsel. This Court directs the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour to deposit the minor applicants share amount, with accrued interest thereon, if any, as fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, under the Cumulative Deposit Scheme, until such time they attain the age of a major and hand over the fixed deposit certificates to the 1st applicant i.e. mother of the minors. 10. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed in W.C.No.143 of 1999, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, dated 23.02.2000, is confirmed. No costs.