Madras High Court
M/S.Patriot Shipping Services vs S.Baskar on 23 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.889 of 2014
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.889 of 2014
and CMP.No.9552 of 2017
M/s.Patriot Shipping Services,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mr.C.B.Bhujangaram,
New.No.6, Old No.14,
Jaffer Syrang Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
.. Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Baskar
2.A.S.Shipping Company,
Nummal,
Chennai – 600 077.
3.New India Assurance Company Limited,
No.45, Moore Street,
5th Floor, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, praying to set aside the order passed in
W.C.No.420 of 2006, dated 20.12.2013 on the file of the Workmen
Compensation, Commissioner cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour - I, is ex
facie illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.889 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.A.Balamurugan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Desingh for R1
M/s.D.Hari for R2
M/s.C.Ramesh Babu for R3
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the respondent in W.C.No.420 of 2006,
filed by the 1st respondent herein, claiming compensation for the grievous
injuries sustained by him in the accident happened on 25.04.2006 when he
was employed under this appellant. The second respondent herein is the
Shipping Company. The third respondent herein is the Insurance Company,
all were contested the case. After full trial, the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour – I, awarded compensation directing the first appellant to pay the
compensation. Aggrieved by that order, the appeal is filed.
2. On seeing the facts of the case, the first respondent herein
was employed under appellant Shipping Company. The nature of the job of
the applicant is to clear the shipping containers at various places such as
Nammal, Ennore, Madhavaram, and other places whenever directed by this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.889 of 2014
appellant. While so, on 25.04.2006, at about 04.30 p.m., while, he was
recording the accountability of the container items, at that time, the lift
machine hit on his back. In that accident, he sustained multiple grievous
injuries and he was taken to private hospital and took treatment nearly about
one month and even after that treatment, he was unable to work and he
sustained loss of earning capacity, so he claimed compensation.
3. On his side, the documents Exs.P1 to P8 were marked, he was
examined as PW.1, Doctor was examined as PW.2. On the side of the second
respondent RW.1 was examined and on the side of the Insurance Company
documents are marked as Exs.R1 to R3.
4. Based upon all these documents and the facts, the
Commissioner of Labour concluded that the policy only cover the road
accident and would not cover the workmen compensation and hence, he
directed the owner/appellant herein to pay the award amount with interest.
Aggrieved, the employer approached this Court by way of this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.889 of 2014
5. The substantial questions of law that arises in the above
appeal for consideration are:
"Whether the Commissioner of Labour was erred in
concluding that the accident was happened in the course of
the employment and directed the appellant to pay the
compensation without considering the policy in the hands of
the 3rd respondent."
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
the first respondent/Injured was not employed under him at the time of the
accident besides it was not happened during the course of employment but
without considering the evidence, the Commissioner of Labour erroneously
directed him to pay the award amount.
7. Per contra, the first respondent/injured submits that as a clerk
he has done his job with regard to loading and unloading containers. While
so, he met with an accident by hitting the lift machine from its behind and the
said machine belongs to the second respondent and insured with the 3rd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.889 of 2014
respondent and the Commissioner of Labour rightly awarded compensation.
So, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
8. On perusal of the records, the first respondent proved that the
accident was happened in the course of employment with the help of
documents namely, discharge summary, Exs.P1, P4 and P5.
9. But the counsel for the appellant submits that there is no
complaint lodged by neither, the first respondent nor by the employer.
Moreover, learned counsel also contends that the accident was not occurred
in the course of his employment.
10. As rightly pointed out by the first respondent counsel, the
accident was happened inside the yard and the same was also admitted by the
appellant before the Commissioner of Labour, but no FIR was lodged.
11. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed
out this fact that the accident was not happened inside the premises, so that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.889 of 2014
the FIR was not lodged. But in his counter statement, he has not denied
about the accident. As per the objection of the appellant, the accident was
happened, while the first respondent crossed the road by talking with cell
phone and it was not happened inside the premises. But there is no evidence,
on the side of the appellant to prove this aspect, but as per the evidence of
PW.1 and other documents proved that the accident was happened inside the
yard. The Commissioner of Labour, while concluding its order directed this
appellant to pay the award amount to the injured for the reason that the policy
which was taken by him is only a personal accident insurance policy with
medical expenses arising out of road accident. So it will not come under the
workmen policy. Therefore, if any road accident met by the employee, the
employer is liable to pay compensation based upon the policy. Considering
that the Commissioner of Labour rightly awarded the compensation directing
this appellant to pay the compensation.
12. On considering the policy, the scope is restricted only to the
road accident victims not to the labourers. But, admittedly, the first
respondent/injured was employed under this appellant and the accident also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.889 of 2014
happened during the course of his employment inside the yard. Therefore,
the appellant is liable to pay compensation not the Insurance Company. The
Deputy Commissioner of Labour rightly directed this appellant to pay the
compensation. Hence, the appeal as such is not maintainable in law.
Accordingly, the question of law is answered.
13. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. The
order passed by the Commissioner of Labour is confirmed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There is no order as to costs.
23.02.2021
ub
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.889 of 2014
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
ub
C.M.A.No.889 of 2014
23.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
