National Insurance Company ... vs Thirumathi Nanjammal
2021 Latest Caselaw 1164 Mad

                                                                                 C.M.A.No.3087 of 2018

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED 20.01.2021

                                                          CORAM

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 C.M.A.No.3087 of 2018
                                                          and
                                                 C.M.P.No.23485 of 2018

                     National Insurance Company Limited,
                     Door No.930, Sathi Road,
                     Gandhipuram,
                     Coimbatore – 45.                                                .. Appellant


                                                           Versus

                     1.Thirumathi Nanjammal
                     2.Arumugham @ Jothimani
                     3.U. Pazhaniswamy Gounder                                  .. Respondents


                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen
                     Compensation Act 1923, to set aside the order passed in W.C.No.69 of 2013
                     dated 25.09.2015 on the file of the Workmen Commissioner and Deputy
                     Commissioner for Labour, Coimbatore.
                                    For Appellant      : Ms. N.B. Surekha
                                    For Respondents    : No Appearance for R1 & R2
                                                         R3 – Died – Steps due



                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                   C.M.A.No.3087 of 2018




                                                     JUDGMENT

The substantial question of law raised in the miscellaneous appeal

on hand is that whether employer-employee relationship is established

between the deceased and the first respondent Arumugham who is the

owner of the vehicle insured. When the claimant has stated that one

Mr.Pazhaniswamy Gounder/second respondent is the employer of the

deceased son of the first respondent Nangammal. The Deputy

Commissioner of Labour has committed an error in fixing the liability on

the appellant / Insurance Company. Despite the fact that the said

Arumugham, is the owner of the vehicle insured with the appellant

Insurance Company. The first respondent one Smt. Nanjammal filed an

application under Section 22 (7) of the Employers Compensation Act, on the

ground that her son Mr.Mohanakumar, as per the instructions of the third

respondent Pazhaniswamy Gounder served as a driver. On 09.06.2010 at

about 3.45 the deceased son of the first respondent had driven the vehicle

bearing Registration No.TN 41 Y 5000, lorry fell down along with the sand

in the well and the son of the first respondent claimant died. The claim

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3087 of 2018

petition was adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences

produced by the respective parties and Ex.A1 F.I.R., reveals that the said

Mohanakumar had driven the vehicle which met with an accident. The

vehicle was parked in a negligent manner and consequently, the said vehicle

fell into the well and the accident occurred.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly

contended that the vehicle which met with an accident admittedly insured

with the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited. However, the

deceased is the son of the claimant and the owner of the vehicle is the

second respondent Arumugham. Further, the claimant Smt Nanjammal is

the wife of the owner of the vehicle Arumugham. In view of the said

relationship, the claimant ought to have established the employer-employee

relationship beyond any failure of doubt. However, there is no document to

establish employer-employee relationship and therefore, the Deputy

Commissioner of Labour committed an error in awarding the compensation

in favour of the claimant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3087 of 2018

3. This Court is of an opinion that mere relationship of husband and

wife or mother and son would not disqualify any claimant from getting

compensation. Even a wife can be an employee of her husband and

husband can be employee of his wife. In such circumstances, either of the

spouse are entitled for compensation but the employer-employee

relationship which is mandatory under the provisions of the Act are to be

established by producing acceptable evidence or documents.

4. For example, in a private college or school, if, the wife of the

claimant is the correspondent and the claimant was appointed as a Lecturer /

Teacher, in the said College and such an appointment was approved by the

competent Educational Authorities then it is a valid appointment and by

producing the proof for the same, the husband employee can establish

employer-employee relationship between the husband and wife and

accordingly entitle for compensation. In fact, what is mandated is that

adequate proof is to be produced for the purpose of compensation

irrespective of the relationship between the employer-employee. As far as

the case on hand is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the first respondent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3087 of 2018

claimant Smt Nanjammal is the wife of the second respondent,

Mr.Arumugam who is the owner of the vehicle which met with an accident

and insured with the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited. The

first respondent wife filed the claim application impleading her husband

owner of the vehicle as the respondent in the application. The son sustained

grievous injuries and died. Under these circumstances, the claimant is

obligated to establish the employer-employee relationship between the

second respondent owner of the vehicle and the deceased son.

5. The perusal of the award reveals that there is no such specific

finding with reference to the documents filed or the employer-employee

relationship is established.

6. The First Information Report also reveals that there is no such

documents or evidence to establish employer-employee relationship. Even

during the trial, the claimant has not produced any acceptable evidence for

the purpose of arriving the conclusion that the employer-employee

relationship existed at the time of accident. This being the factum the award

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3087 of 2018

is perverse. Accordingly, the award dated 25.09.2015 passed in W.C.No.69

of 2013 is set aside. CMA.No.3087 of 2018 stands allowed. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The appellant Insurance

Company is permitted to withdraw the amount if any along with the accrued

interest by filing an appropriate application.

20.01.2021 Index: Yes/ No AT

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3087 of 2018

To The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.3087 of 2018

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

AT

C.M.A.No.3087 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.23485 of 2018

20.01.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/