Madras High Court
S.Gopi vs N.Jayasankar on 20 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.2914 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.2914 of 2010
S.Gopi ..Appellant
Vs.
1.N.Jayasankar
2.The Divisional Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited
110, Gandhi Road, Arani,
Thiruvannamalai District. ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen Compensation Act, against the order of the Workmen
Compensation Commissioner Tribunal (Deputy Commissioner of
Labour – I, Chennai – 600 006) dated 08.01.2010 passed in W.C.No.16
of 2007 which was received by the appellant on 18.08.2010.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Rajmohan
For Respondents : R1 – No appearance
R2 – Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2914 of 2010
JUDGMENT
The Award dated 08.01.2010 passed in W.C.No.16 of 2007 is
under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellant is the claimant, filed an application seeking
compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act. The appellant
states that on 19.04.2006 at about 2.00 A.M., when he was working as
Coolie in a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-23-A-4979, insured with
the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, met with an accident. The
appellant sustained severe injuries and had taken treatment. The
Insurance Company disputed the claim mainly on the ground that there
is no coverage for Coolie as the owner of the vehicle had not paid any
premium for such coverage. In the absence of any such coverage, the
liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance company.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues
with reference to the documents and arrived a conclusion that there is no
coverage for the Coolie and the owner of the vehicle has not paid any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2914 of 2010
premium for Coolie under the policy. Thus, the Insurance company is
not liable and consequently, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay
compensation to the victims. The compensation was awarded against the
owner of the vehicle. Challenging the said order, the claimant preferred
the present appeal, stating that the Insurance company should be liable
to pay compensation.
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the fact
remains that there is no insurance coverage for the Coolie travelled in
the vehicle, which met with an accident, the liability cannot be fastened
on the Insurance company and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had
rightly decided the issues and the question of law raised in the appeal
deserves no merit consideration. The Pay and Recovery principle cannot
be granted in this case, in view of the fact that there is no insurance
coverage at all. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in arriving a
conclusion that the Award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is in
consonance with the settled principles and there is no infirmity as such.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.2914 of 2010
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
5. Accordingly, the Award dated 08.01.2010 passed in W.C.No.16
of 2007 stands confirmed and consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal in C.M.A.No.2914 of 2010 stands dismissed. No costs.
20.01.2021
(1/3)
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
To
1. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner Tribunal,
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I,
Chennai – 600 006)
2.The Sub-Assistant Registrar,
A.E.Section,
High Court of Madras.
C.M.A.No.2914 of 2010
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
