Madras High Court
M/S.Royal Sundaram Alliance ... vs Thiru.Varadharaj on 3 February, 2021
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
C.M.A.No.940 of 2018
M/s.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited,
Sundaram Towers,
No.45, 46, Whites Road,
Chennai 600 014.
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Thiru.Varadharaj
2.Thiru.Ponnuvel
3.Thiru.Rathinavel
4.Tmt.Madhavi
5.Selvi.Vijayasanthi
6.Mr.Afrose Baig
..Respondents
Prayer in C.M.A.No.940 of 2018: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed
under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the
order in W.C.No.475 of 2008, dated 18.12.2017 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Salem.
In C.M.A.No.940 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.E.Rajadurai for
Mr.M.B.Gopalan Associates
For Respondents : Ms.Ramya V.Rao for R1
No appearance RR2 to 6
COMMON JUDGMENT
The orders passed in W.C.Nos.475, 476, 478, 479, 480 of 2008
and W.C.No.27 of 2009, dated 18.12.2017, is under challenge in the
present civil miscellaneous appeals.
2. The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited is
an appellant in all these appeals. The main ground raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant is that the vital factor regarding the employee
employer relationship had not been established by the claimants before
the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Thus, the claim itself is
unsustainable and therefore, the award passed is liable to be scraped.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that many
persons travelled in the vehicle which met with an accident. The
accident occurred on 25.07.2008. The vehicle belongs to the sixth
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
respondent bearing Registration No.TN 21 L 7277. Totally 22 Load
Men were travelled in the said lorry to unload the bricks, at the time of
the accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the vehicle. The claim petitions were filed and
the FIR was registered and marked as document.
4. Perusal of the entire findings in the award, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour made a finding that there is no evidence to
establish the employee employer relationship. The Deputy
Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the documents and evidences
elaborately and the deposition of the witnesses were also considered
with reference to the FIR. The findings in the award reveals that the
claimants have not established the employee employer relationship. The
relevant portion of the findings is extracted hereunder:
““g[fhh; mspj;j egh; Kjy; jfty;
mwpf;ifapy; fhzg;gLk; Tw;Wf;fSf;F khwhd
Tw;Wf;fis ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; rhl;rpakhf
mspj;Js;shh;/ Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy;
fhzg;gLk; Tw;Wf;fis my;yJ rhl;rpaj;jpy;
bjhptpj;Js;s Tw;Wf;fis ,jpy; vJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
nknyh';fp epw;Fk; vd;gJ bjhlh;ghf
kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; Rl;of;fhl;oa[s;s
ePjpkd;wj;jPh;g;g[fspd;go rhl;rpf; Tz;oy;
rj;jpagpukhzk; bra;J mspf;fg;gLk;
rhl;rpank nknyh';fp epw;Fk;/ Mdhy;
,uz;lhk; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy;
Rl;of;fhl;lg;gl;l 2007 ACJ 1928 jPh;g;gpd;go
rhd;whthzj;jpd; xU gFjp Tw;Wf;fis
,Ujug;gpdUk; xg;g[f;bfhz;l epiyapy;. kW
gFjp Tw;wpid mJ epU:gpf;fg;gl;lhYk;.
epU:gpf;fg;glhtpl;lhYk;. mjid mog;gilahff;
bfhz;L jPh;g;ghak; Kot[ bra;tJ
tpnuhjkhdjy;y/ ,jd;go thfdj;jpw;fhd
tpguj;ija[k;. tpgj;jpd;nghJ ,we;jth;fs;
thfdj;jpy; gazk; bra;J
tpgj;jpw;Fs;shdija[k; ,Ujug;gpdUk;
Vw;Wf;bfhz;Ltpl;l epiyapy;. _u';fd; vd;gth;
jhd; ntiyf;F miHj;jhh; vd;Wk;. gzp
Koj;J tPl;ow;F jpUk;g[k;nghJ jhd; tpgj;J
Vw;gl;lbjd;Wk; g[fhh;jhuh; bjhptpj;j
Tw;Wf;fis fUj;jpw;bfhz;L kDjhuh;fs;
Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s ,we;jth;fSf;Fk;. Kjy;
vjph;kDjhuh;fSf;Fkpilna
ntiyaspg;gth;?ntiyahs; cwt[
,y;iybad;Wk;. gzpapd;nghJ gzpapd;
fhuzkhf tpgj;J Vw;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
Kot[f;F tu Koa[k;/ ,e;epiyapy;
ntiyaspg;gtuhd Kjy; vjph;kDjhuUk;
kd;wj;jpy; M$uhfp jhd; kDjhuh;fis
gzpf;F mkh;j;jtpy;iy vd;Wk;. jdf;Fk;
kDjhuh;fs; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s ,we;jth;fSf;Fk;
ntiyaspg;gth;?ntiyahs; cwt[
,y;iybad;Wk; jpl;ltl;lkhf bjhptpj;Js;shh;/
,we;jth;fs; Kjy; vjph;kDjhuhplk;
gzpg[hpe;jpUe;jth;fs; vd;gjw;F Kjyhk;
vjph;kDjhuuhy; mspf;fg;gl;l rhd;whtz';fs;
VJk; ,Uf;f tha;g;gpy;iy/ tpgj;J bjhlh;ghd
Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if. kUj;Jt rpfpr;ir
bjhlh;ghd Mtz';fs; kl;Lnk jhf;fy;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;sd/ ntW tifapy; tha;bkhHp
rhl;rpaKk;. kDjhuh;fs; jtpu ntW
vJt[kpy;iy/ Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapd;
g[fhh;jhuh;. Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy;
fhzg;gLk; Tw;Wf;fis jdJ rhl;rpak; K:yk;
kWj;Jtpl;l epiyapy; mjid KGikahf
ek;gp Kot[ bra;atpayhJ/ Kjy;
vjph;kDjhuUk; kDjhuh;fsJ Tw;Wf;fis
kWj;jhnu jtpu cz;ikia bjhptpf;f
Kd;tutpy;iy/ Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy;
fhzg;gLk; _u';fd; vd;gth;jhd; ,e;egh;fis
ntiyf;F miHj;jhh;; tPl;ow;F jpUk;g[k;
nehf;Fld; gazpfshf brd;wnghJjhd;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
tpgj;J Vw;gl;lJ vd;w Tw;Wf;fs;
cz;ikahditjhd; vd;gij epU:gpf;f
vjph;kDjhuh;fSk; Kaw;rpnaJk; vLf;ftpy;iy/
nkYk;. kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;irapypUe;j
jpU/uhkfpUc&;zd; vd;gtuJ thf;FK:yj;ij
gjpt[ bra;J mjpy; mthplk; ifbahg;gk;
bgw;Wte;J Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if gjpt[
bra;ag;gl;l epiyapy; Kjy; jfty;
mwpf;ifapy; mtuJ ifbahg;gk;
,lk;bgw;wpUg;gJ Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifia
re;njfj;jpw;Fs;shf;fpapUg;gjhf kDjhuh;fs;
jug;gpy; Rl;of;fhl;lg;gl;lJ/”
5. Then the entire findings extracted above reveals that the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour himself arrived a conclusion that the
employee employer relationship did not exist. Thus, there is no reason
whatsoever to fix the liability on the Insurance Company. The liability
of the Insurance Company is limited with reference to the terms and
conditions of the policy as well as the with reference to Sections 146 &
147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the liability on the Insurance
Company shall be fixed, if the employee employer relationship is
established and the vehicle which insured met with an accident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
6. In the present case, the factum regarding the accident was
established and the coverage of policy was also established and injuries
were also established, however, the employee employer relationship was
not established and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour also arrived a
conclusion that the claimants have not established the employee
employer relationship.
7. With reference to the very same accident, other set of claimants
filed applications under the Workmen Compensation Act and in respect
of those cases in W.C.Nos.27,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37 of 2009 and
480 of 2008, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour arrived a conclusion
that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. It is pertinent
to note that the very same Deputy Commissioner of Labour one
Smt.G.Sasikala, passed the two orders and in one order, with reference
to the same accident, the liability is fixed on the owner of the vehicle. In
respect of the order which is now under challenge in the present appeal,
the liability is fixed on the Insurance Company. The findings in both the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
claim petitions are one and the same. This being the factum, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour had committed a patent error in adopting two
different yardstick for the purpose of fixing the liability.
8. Once the Deputy Commissioner of Labour arrived a conclusion
that there is no evidence to establish the employee employer
relationship, then the liability is to be fixed on the owner of the vehicle.
However, in the other cases, yet another ground was prevailed that there
is no insurance coverage established. However, the employee employer
was not established in both the claim petitions. Therefore, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour ought to have fixed the liability uniformly in
all claim petitions on the owner of the vehicle. Contrarily, the liability
cannot be fixed on the Insurance Company.
9. This being the factum established, the common award dated
18.12.2017 passed in W.C.Nos.475, 476, 477, 478 & 479 of 2008, is set
aside and C.M.A.Nos.940, 941, 942, 943, 944 & 945 of 2018 stand
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
closed.
10. However, the liability is now shifted on the owner of the
vehicle. Thus, the third respondent owner of the vehicle is directed to
pay the award amount with accrued interest to all the claimants.
11. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to withdraw the
deposited amount with accrued interest by filing an appropriate
application before the competent authority and payments are to be made
through RTGS.
03.02.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
gsk
To
The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
gsk
C.M.A.Nos.940 to 945 of 2018 and
C.M.P.Nos.7674 to 7679 of 2018
03.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
