Sunday, 10, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

National Insurance Company ... vs M.Ranganathan .. 1St
2021 Latest Caselaw 25208 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 25208 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 December, 2021

Madras High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs M.Ranganathan .. 1St on 22 December, 2021
                                                                             C.M.A.(MD)No.969 of 2021


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 22.12.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

                                           C.M.A.(MD)No.969 of 2021
                                                    and
                                           C.M.P(MD)No.9186 of 2021

                  National Insurance Company Limited,
                  175-A, Great Cotton Road,
                  Thoothukudi District.                       .. Appellant/2nd Respondent


                                                        Vs.

                  1.M.Ranganathan                             .. 1st Respondent/Petitioner


                  2.K.Ganesan                                 .. 2nd Respondents/ 1st Respondent


                  PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor

                  Vehicles Act, to set aside the award dated 15.07.2021 made in E.C.No.31 of

                  2016 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Authority under the

                  Employees Compensation Act), Tirunelveli, (which was received by the

                  Appellate Insurance Company on 23.07.2021 vide enclosed postal cover).

                                       For Appellant     : Mr.J.S.Murali
                                       For Respondents : No appearance


                 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                C.M.A.(MD)No.969 of 2021




                                                     JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the

appellant/claimant to enhance the award amount passed in E.C.No.31 of

2016, dated 15.07.2021, on the file of the Joint Commissioner of Labour

(Authority under the Employees Compensation Act), Tirunelveli.

2. Eventhough notice served to the respondents and their name also

printed in the cause list, there is no representation either by them or through

counsel.

3. The Insurance Company filed this appeal to set aside the award

passed in E.C.No.31 of 2016 on the file of the Joint Commissioner of Labour

(Authority under the Employees Compensation Act), Tirunelveli on the

ground that there was no relationship as employer and employee between R2-

Ganesan and the victim/claimant.

4. The case of the claimant before the Labour Court is that the claimant

was working as employee under R1-Ganesan. On 05.06.2016, when he was

on duty, he drove the Maruthi Amni Van bearing Registration No.TN-04-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.969 of 2021

B-2700 belonged to the owner-Ganesan, at Madurai-Thoothukudi Road,

suddenly the vehicle capsized near Kotturvilakku, due to which he sustained

grievous injuries. Thereafter, the claimant undertook treatment as inpatient in

Preethi Hospital for the injuries sustained by him. The claimant claimed that

the accident occurred during the course of his work under

R1/Ganesan/employee. Since there was an employer employee relationship

between the claimant and R1-Ganesan, he is liable to pay the compensation.

4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant two witnesses were

examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and nine documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.9. On the side of the respondents herein, one witness was examined as

R.W.1 and three documents were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

5.The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidences and the arguments of the learned counsel for the

claimant and the respondents and also on appreciating the evidences on

record, held that the accident occurred during the course of his work under

his employee and hence, the employee-Ganesan is liable to pay a sum of

Rs.10,79,300/- as compensation and further directed the insurance

company/R2 before the Labour Court, to pay the compensation as pay and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.969 of 2021

recovery. Against which, the appellant/insurance company has filed this

present appeal to set aside the award of compensation passed by the Labour

Court.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant

did not produce any document to prove that the claimant was the employer

under R1-Ganesan and the accident occurred only due to the course of

employment. The appellant filed counter before the Labour Court and denied

the relationship between R1-Ganesan and the victim. R1-Ganesan also set

exparte. Notice sent to R1-Ganesan by the appellant which was marked as

Ex.R2 and acknowledgement card also marked as Ex.R3. Even then, R1-

Ganesan has not produced any documents before the Labour Court. Hence,

he prays for dismissal of the award passed by the Labour Court.

7. The Joint Commissioner of Labour also discussed that there was no

documents filed by the claimant for his employment. Even after receiving the

notice from the appellant, R1 has not filed any document to prove that the

claimant is a paid driver under him. If the claimant has any grievance and to

work out his remedy, he may approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

by filing claim petition under Motor Accident Claims not before the Labour

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.969 of 2021

Court under Employees Compensation Act. Perusal of the FIR, which was

marked as Ex.P1, shows that the owner of the Maruthi Amni Van is one

Muthusamy, who is the father of the claimant. But one Ganesan has added as

R1 in the claim application as he was the owner of the Maruthi Amni Van. So

the claimant did not prove the relationship between his employer and also the

accident occurred only in the course of the employment.

8. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside

the award, dated 15.07.2021 passed in E.C.No.31 of 2016 by the Joint

Commissioner (Authority under the Employees Compensation Act),

Tirunelveli. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed. The Appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to get refund of the

deposited award amount with accrued interest and costs by filing appropriate

application before the Labour Court.

22.12.2021

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No

PJL

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(MD)No.969 of 2021

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.

To

1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (Authority under the Employees Compensation Act), Tirunelveli.

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.969 of 2021

S.ANANTHI, J.

PJL

C.M.A.(MD)No.969 of 2021

22.12.2021

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter