Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs M.Anand on 14 December, 2021
CMA(MD)No.1352 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD)No.1352 of 2011
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011
The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
913, Catholic Centre Main Road,
Kovilpatti-628 501. ... Appellant
vs.
1.M.Anand
2.T.Kumar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, to set aside the order dated
25.07.2011 made in W.C.No.127 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner
for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour),
Madurai.
For Appellants : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
For Respondents : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
CMA(MD)No.1352 of 2011
JUDGMENT
The appellant filed this appeal to set aside the order dated
25.07.2011 passed in W.C.No.127 of 2005 on the file of the
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of
Labour), Madurai.
2. The first respondent was employed as driver by the second
respondent in Eicher Goods van bearing Registration No.TN-04-Y-2811.
On 24.05.2003, the first respondent loaded the Cinema Shooting goods
in the said Van, which proceeded from Courtalam to Chennai. At about
10.00 a.m., near Gundoosi Mill in Rajapalayam-Srivilliputhur Main
Road, a lorry bearing Registration No.TAO 7931 came in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the van, as a result of which, the
first respondent sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the first respondent
filed W.C.No.127 of 2005 before the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Madurai, claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained by him.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, after analysing
the oral and documentary evidences, awarded a sum of Rs.1,61,930/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1352 of 2011
(Rupees One Lakh Sixty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Only)
to the first respondent and directed the Insurance Company to pay the
same. Questioning the liability fixed on them, the appellant has filed this
appeal on the ground that the first respondent was not in possession of
valid driving licence on the date of the accident.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that on the date of accident, the
first respondent was not having valid license to drive the vehicle and the
insurance policy stands in the name of one K.Vellaisamy. The first
respondent/claimant failed to prove the employer-employee relationship.
He relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of
National insurance Company Limited. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala
reported in 2008 ACJ 2860 and contended that the said judgment is not
applicable to the case on hand.
5. The first respondent / claimant has produced the copy of the
driving licence, which were marked as Exs.P8 and P9. A perusal of the
Ex.P8 and P9 shows that the first respondent was not having valid
driving license on the date of accident. It is a clear case of violation of
Insurance Policy. In the Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1352 of 2011
the appellant in BELI RAM vs. Rajinder Kumar and other, it is
observed that while protecting the rights of the claimant, it has to be seen
as to whether the claimant is having valid license on the date of accident,
and if, the claimant is not having valid licence, he ought to be prosecuted
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Insurance Company cannot be made
liable to pay the compensation. In the present case on hand, though the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai has observed in his orders that
the first respondent was not holding valid driving licence on the date of
accident, directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. The
evidence adduced by the first respondent / claimant itself shows that he
was not in possessing of valid driving licence on the date of accidence.
In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to interfere with the orders
passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. The liability
fixed on the Insurance Company is alone hereby set aside. The quantum
of compensation fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai
is not challenged in this appeal and it is hereby confirmed. The
employer/owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the first
respondent / claimant.
6. Hence, the order passed in W.C.No.127 of 2005 by the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Madurai is set aside with regard to the liability
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1352 of 2011
of the Insurance Company and the second respondent /owner of the
vehicle is directed to pay entire compensation of of Rs.1,61,930/-
(Rupees One Lakh Sixty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Only)
together with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident till the
date of deposit to the credit of W.C.No.127 of 2005 on the file of the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the
first respondent is permitted to withdraw the same after following due
process of law.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
14.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssb
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1352 of 2011
S.ANANTHI, J.
ssb
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.
CMA(MD)No.1352 of 2011
14.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
