Smt.Shanthi vs Smt.Latha Udyakumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1346 Mad

                                                                             C.M.A.No.2926 of 2013

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 21.01.2021

                                                           CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 C.M.A.No.2926 of 2013

                     1.Smt.Shanthi

                     2.Sri Sivaji                                               ..Appellants
                                                             Vs.

                     1.Smt.Latha Udyakumar

                     2.The Divisional Manager,
                       United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
                       Katpadi Road,
                       T.K.M.Complex,
                       Vellore.                                                 ..Respondents

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
                     Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated
                     31.01.2013, made in W.C.No.227 of 2007 on the file of the
                     Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner
                     for Labour-I, Chennai.

                                     For Appellants      : Mr.C.Prabakaran

                                     For Respondents : No appearance




                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                C.M.A.No.2926 of 2013

                                                    JUDGMENT

The award dated 31.01.2013, made in W.C.No.227 of 2007,

is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

2. The substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal by

the appellants are that whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is

correct in holding that the claimants have not proved the employee

employer relationship between the deceased and the first respondent?

Whether the finding of the award that the claimants have not proved the

death of the deceased during the course of employment? Whether there

is any impediment for the Insurance Company to settle the claims in

favour of the claimants. All the substantial questions of law raised are

related to the factual aspects and there is no valid question of law raised

in the present appeal.

3. However, the fact remains that on 02.03.2006 at about 11.30

p.m. one S.Manikandan was riding from Ambur to Chennai in a car as a

driver. It is stated that he was driving a car during the course of the

employment. The car got repair at Villivakkam and the said driver of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2926 of 2013

car went to purchase spare parts in two wheeler in the nearby spare parts

shop at Villivakkam. While driving in two wheeler, he dashed in an

electrical light post standing in the 7th Street, Second Main Road,

Jaganatha Nagar and sustained fatal injuries and he was admitted in

hospital and died subsequently. The parents of the deceased

Manikandan filed an application seeking compensation.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issue on

the basis of the documents and evidence and the findings of the Deputy

Commissioner reveals that the car was insured with the second

respondent United India Insurance Company. The car was not met with

an accident at all. As per the application, the car was under repair and

the deceased Manikandan has taken a two wheeler and went to a spare

parts shop to purchase certain parts. While riding the two wheeler, he

dashed in the electrical light post and sustained fatal injuries. Therefore,

it is to be established that whether the Insurance Company is liable to

pay the compensation based on the policy. The factum regarding the

accident was established. The policy was in force. However, the insured

car did not meet with an accident at all. The deceased Manikandan died

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2926 of 2013

while riding the two wheeler which was not insured in the second

respondent Insurance Company.

5. This being the factum established, the liability to pay

compensation cannot be fixed on the Insurance Company. In fact, the

liability is to be fixed on the employer as the accident occurred during

the course of the employment, when the employee has gone to purchase

spare parts to the car. Thus, the employer is liable to pay compensation,

if at all the employee employer relationship is established and the

accident occurred during the course of the employment. However, the

Insurance Company cannot be liable to pay compensation. The Deputy

Commissioner of Labour has arrived at the finding that even the

employee employer relationship was also not established.

6. This apart, the insured car did not meet with an accident. This

being the factum established, there is no infirmity or perversity as such

in respect of the award passed as well as the reasonings furnished in the

award.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2926 of 2013

7. Thus, the award dated 31.01.2013, made in W.C.No.227 of

2007 stands confirmed and C.M.A.No.2926 of 2013 stands dismissed.

No costs.

21.01.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order gsk

To

The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner for Labour-I, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.2926 of 2013

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

gsk

C.M.A.No.2926 of 2013

21.01.2021

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