Madras High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs K. Nagalingam on 19 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.296 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.2393 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 19.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.296 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.2393 of 2016
The United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.24, Whites Road,
Chennai – 14. .. Appellant
Versus
1.K. Nagalingam
2.M. Padmavathi .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen
Compensation Act 1923, against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour – 2, Chennai dated 24.08.2015 made in W.C.No.328 of 2010.
For Appellant : Mr. D. Bhaskaran
For Respondents : R1 – Notice sent – No such person
R2 – No Appearance
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.296 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.2393 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The award dated 24.08.2015 passed in W.C.No.328/2010 is under
challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal. The first respondent one
Mr. Nagalingam, was working as a driver under the second respondent-M.
Padmavathi. He was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.7,500/- and he was
aged about 48 years at the time of accident. The first respondent was
working as a driver in Ashok Leyland Tanker Lorry bearing Registration
No.TN-04-AA-9909. On 01.04.2009, at about 11.30 hours, the lorry met
with an accident and the first respondent sustained serious injury, during the
course of employment. The claim petition was filed and the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues with reference to the
documents and evidences. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour relying on
the evidence submitted by the claimants fixed the monthly salary of
Rs.4,000/- and the Loss of Income is fixed as 35%. The accident occurred
on 01.04.2009 and therefore fixation of salary as Rs.4,000/- per month
cannot be construed as excessive and in fact it is a reasonable amount fixed
for the purpose of quantifying the compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.296 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.2393 of 2016
2. The substantial question of law raised in the appeal on hand,
whether, in the absence of any materials, the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour is right in arriving at the conclusion that the accident occurred
during the course of employment. It is further raised that it is the case
whether the claimant is coming under the definition of the workmen as
defined under Section 2N and under Section 3 of the Act. In this regard, the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, categorically made a finding that the
driver was possessing a valid driving licence and the lorry is met with an
accident was also having a valid fitness certificate. It is further found that
the second respondent owner of the vehicle are the appellant Insurance
Company had established that the driver had not met with an accident
during the course of employment and no such evidence are proved and it is
submitted by the opposite party in the application. In the absence of any
evidence are proved to establish that the accident was not occurred during
the course of employment. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour is right in
arriving the conclusion that the accident occurred during the course of
employment as established by the claimant before the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.296 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.2393 of 2016
3. This being the factum, this Court do not find any acceptable
ground for the purpose of considering the appeal. Accordingly, the award
dated 24.08.2015 passed in W.C.No.328/2010 stands confirmed.
Consequently, CMA.No.296/2016 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
conned miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.01.2021
Index: Yes/ No
AT
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II,
Chennai.
C.M.A.No.296 of 2016 and
C.M.P.No.2393 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
