M/S.Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Thiru.R.P.Manjukumar :1St
2021 Latest Caselaw 10776 Mad

                                                                          C.M.A(MD)No.877 of 2021


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                        Reserved on        : 22.03.2022
                                        Pronounced on      : 29.03.2022

                                                   CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

                                          C.M.A(MD)No.877 of 2021
                                                   and
                                          C.M.P(MD)No.8271 of 2021


                     M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
                     Through its Divisional Manager,
                     K.J.R.Complex,
                     16, North Veli Street,
                     Madurai-625 001.`                    :Appellant/2nd respondent


                                                   .vs.


                     1.Thiru.R.P.Manjukumar                :1st Respondent/Petitioner
                     2.Thiru.V.Sethu                       :2nd Respondent/1st Respondent


                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of
                     Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, against the award dated 27.04.2021
                     in E.C.No.83 of 2017 on the file of the Commissioner for Employee's
                     Compensation, Madurai.
                                  For Appellant           :Mr.C.Karthik
                                  For R1                  :Mr.K.R.Sivashankari
                                  For R2                  :No appearance



                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                   C.M.A(MD)No.877 of 2021


                                                       JUDGMENT

*********

The Insurance company is the appellant herein has filed this appeal

under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923,

challenging the liability of the Insurance Company, in respect of the

award passed in E.C.No.83 of 2017.

2.The first respondent herein is the claimant claiming

compensation for the death of a person employed by the second

respondent herein, owner of the vehicle. The appellant, who is the

second respondent before the Labour Court, specifically raised a plea

that the claimant is not having any valid driving licence to drive the

vehicle, owned by the second respondent herein, at the time of accident.

So, he was cross examined. Hence, when the owner of the vehicle has

allowed the person to drive the vehicle, who is not having driving

licence, the Insurance Company has been fastened with the liability and

also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil.

Appeal Numbers 7220-7221/2011 in Beli Ram-vs- Rajinder Kumar &

Another. When the Insurance Company raises a plea that the driver of the

vehicle does not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident, it is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.877 of 2021

for the owner of the vehicle to prove that at the time of accident, the

driver had valid driving license to drive the vehicle, either by producing

the original or xerox copy of the same, at the time of the trial before the

Lower Court. Though notice was issued, the same was not produced

before the Court. The first respondent did not take any steps by taking

summons at least to examine the second respondent, the owner of the

vehicle, insured with the appellant Insurance Company.

3.The Labour Court records reveal the fact that the second

respondent, owner of the vehicle herein, was set ex-parte and hence,

nothing was produced on the side of the first respondent/claimant to

establish and prove the fact that he is having valid driving licence at the

time of accident. Therefore, I find that the Labour Court, has erroneously

fixed the burden upon the Insurance Company to disprove that at the

time of accident the driver of the vehicle does not possess valid driving

licence. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Beli

Ram-vs- Rajinder Kumar & Another reported in 2020(2)TNMAC

445(SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the driver

of the vehicle does not possess valid driving licence, to drive the vehicle

at the time of accident, the claim under the Workman Compensation Act,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.877 of 2021

cannot be fastened upon the Insurance Company, if at all the owner has

to pay the same.

4.It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/Insurance Company that the entire award amount has already

been deposited to the credit of the claim petition. In view of the fact that

as per this judgment, the appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated

from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant, the Tribunal is

directed to refund the award amount so deposited to the

appellant/Insurance Company with proportionate accrued interest, on

filing of necessary application. The owner of the vehicle is liable to pay

the compensation and the claimant shall proceed against the owner of the

vehicle following the due process of law.

5.With the above observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

29.03.2022

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ns

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.877 of 2021

To

1.The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Madurai.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.877 of 2021

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

Ns

JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)No.877 of 2021 and C.M.P(MD)No.8271 of 2021

29.03.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis