Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs G.Subramaniam on 23 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.551 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :23.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.M.A.No.551 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Thiruchengode.
.. Appellant
Vs.
1.G.Subramaniam
2.K.M.Chandra .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, against the award dated 11.05.2004
made in W.C.No.139 of 2002, on the file of the Workmen's Compensation
Tribunal, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.Arun Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.C.Kulanthaivel
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.551 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the second respondent in W.C.No.139 of
2002, filed by the first respondent herein/injured, who claimed compensation
for the injuries sustained by him, due to the accident happened on
25.12.2001, while he was employed as a driller under the second respondent
herein rig unit lorry bearing registration No.TN-34-0001. The appellant
herein is the Insurance Company under whom the vehicle belongs to the
second respondent was insured. After full trial, the Commissioner of Labour
directed the second respondent to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by that
order, he preferred this Appeal.
2. As per the appellant contention that the Commissioner of
Labour failed to note that the vehicle was not in use at the time of the
accident, so the injured not come under the purview of worker as defined
under Act. So he prays to allow the appeal.
3. Point for consideration:
"Whether the Commissioner of Labour rightly awarded the
compensation to the person, who is not coming under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.551 of 2012
purview of workman as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act."
4. The facts reveal that the first respondent as a driller employed
under the second respondent herein in the rig unit lorry and he was earning a
monthly salary of Rs.3,000/-. While so, on 25.12.2001, Coimbatore District,
near Sulur, when the said rig unit lorry was installed in order to dig a bore
well, at the time, the winch motor from the said vehicle fell down on the left
side hand. Thereby, the first respondent sustained grievous injury and he
was admitted in the private hospital nearly about two weeks and took
treatment and he suffered 30% partial disability. So, he prayed for
compensation. The owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company
were contested the case.
5. There is no evidence, on the side of the first respondent and
the Insurance Company adduced the evidence. As per the Insurance
Company at the time of the alleged accident, the rig unit was installed
without action, so, the injured not sustained the injury during course of his
employment under the second respondent herein. Thereby, injured is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.551 of 2012
entitled to claim compensation as he alleged in the petition.
6. Before the Commissioner of Labour, the petition was
examined as PW.1 and documents Ex.P1 to P4 were marked and on the
respondent side evidence was marked as Ex.R1 and policy copy marked as
RW.1 witness examined.
7. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the
Commissioner of Labour found that the accident was happened during the
course of his employment and awarded compensation.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injured
was doing the drilling work in the bore well, which was no way connected
with the rig unit vehicle as it is not part of the employment, hence, it will not
come under the course of his employment.
9. But on seeing the entire evidence, it reveals that while the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.551 of 2012
injured/first respondent was doing the drilling work, the bore well machine
has fallen down and sustained injuries. Admittedly, even if the injured was
doing the driller work in the bore well, it is part of the work connected with
the digging bore well with the help of the rig unit lorry. Therefore, the
objection raised by the Insurance Company is not sustainable one.
10. It is admitted fact that the injured was an employee and
doing drilling work, which is connected with the digging bore well.
Therefore, the Commissioner of Labour rightly concluded that the accident
was happened during the course of his employment under the second
respondent herein. Therefore, the objection raised by the Insurance Company
is unsustainable one. Accordingly, the question of law is answered.
11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the entire amount along with accrued interest.
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.551 of 2012
ub
12. With regard to other findings, the order passed by the learned
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai, is confirmed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
23.02.2021
ub
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
C.M.A.No.551 of 2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
