Madras High Court
Divisional Manager vs K. Saravanan on 20 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.4012 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.22664 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 20.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.4012 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.22664 of 2019
Divisional Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
D.O.110, J.N.Street,
Puducherry – 605 001. .. Appellant
Versus
1.K. Saravanan
2.Sri Venkateswara Medical College
& Hospital, Ariyur,
Puducherry – 605 102.
3.Balaji Engineering Workshop,
Nellikuppam Main Road,
Nellikuppam, Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act 1923, to set aside the award dated
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4012 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.22664 of 2019
24.07.2019 made in W.C.No.303/2016 on the file of the Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation-2 Court, (Joint Commissioner of Labour – 2,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006).
For Appellant : Mr. S. Vadivel
For Respondents : Mr. A.N. Viswanatha Rao, for R1
R2 – No Appearance
R3 – Died
JUDGMENT
The substantial question of law raised in the appeal on hand is
that whether the the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is right in fixing the
liability on the appellant-National Insurance Company. Despite the fact that
the nature of Workmen Compensation Policy is Workers Welfare Policy and
therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour committed an error.
2. The National Insurance Company is the appellant. The first
respondent is the claimant who filed an application seeking compensation
under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act on the ground that the
first respondent was a workmen (skilled) employed by the third respondent
Balaji Engineering Workshop. On 29.03.2016, while the first respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4012 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.22664 of 2019
was performing the grill fixing work along with other co-workmen in the 3 rd
floor of the hospital, met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries.
He had taken treatment and thereafter filed an application seeking
compensation. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues
with reference to the documents and evidences produced by the respective
parties.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant National Insurance Company
contended that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation in view of the fact that the nature of policy is the not Workers
Welfare Insurance Policy. Therefore, the liability has been erroneously
fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour.
4. This Court examined the findings with reference to the documents
and the counter filed by the appellant in the claim petition reveals that the
appellant Insurance Company admitted the liability. In para 2 of the counter
filed by the appellant Insurance Company before the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour reads as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4012 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.22664 of 2019
“2. This Opposite party submits that the 2nd
opposite party insured with this opposite party to one
person under Workers Welfare Insurance. As per the said
policy covers 2 lakhs for Personal Accident and 1 lakh
for medical expenses. As per Section – 1 of the said
policy, such injury shall cause total or irrecoverable loss
of any part of body. Hence, this Opposite party is not
liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and on
the sole ground, the claim application has to be dismissed
in respect of this opposite party.”
5. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour also restricted the liability
of the appellant Insurance Company with reference to the policy by
awarding the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- compensation along with the medical
expenses of Rs.2,02,406/-. When the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has
rightly restricted the compensation as per the terms and conditions of the
Workers Welfare Insurance, there is no reason to deny liability in totality.
This apart, regarding the liability, the appellant Insurance Company had not
let in any evidence nor produce any documents to establish the same. In the
absence of any evidence to establish exoneration from the liability, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4012 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.22664 of 2019
Deputy Commissioner of Labour is right in awarding compensation as per
the terms and conditions of the policy by fixing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
along with the medical expenses. A balance amount of Rs.2,40,316/-, is
directed to be paid by the employer. This being the award, this Court do not
find any perversity or infirmity as such, and the liability is fixed in
accordance with the nature of policy which is an admitted fact by the
appellant before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour through their counter.
Thus, the award dated 24.07.2019, passed in W.C.No.303/2016 stands
confirmed. CMA.No.4012/2019 stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.01.2021
Index: Yes/ No
AT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.4012 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.22664 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AT
To
The Joint Commissioner of Labour – 2,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
C.M.A.No.4012 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.22664 of 2019
20.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
