Madras High Court
The National Insurance Company ... vs G.Santhosh Kumar on 22 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 and
Cros.Obj.No.97 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 and
Cros.Obj.No.97 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
The National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Branch Office, No.74 – Paramathy Road,
Namakkal – 637 001.
..Appellant
Vs.
1.G.Santhosh Kumar
2.Thirumathi Usha
3.N.Kartheekeyan ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923, against the order passed in
W.C.No.75 of 2015 dated 02.06.2015 by the Commissioner of
Workmen's Compensation, Salem.
For Appellant : Ms.N.B.Surekha
For Respondents : Mr.Ma.Pa.Thangavel for R1
Mr.R.Jayaprakash for R2 & R3
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 and
Cros.Obj.No.97 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The award dated 02.06.2015 in W.C.No.75 of 2015, is under
challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
2. The substantial question of law raised in the present appeal on
hand is that when the first respondent Santhosh Kumar, in the FIR Ex.P1
has stated as if he is the owner of the vehicle which met with an
accident. Subsequently, he made a twist and attempted to establish that
he is a driver of the vehicle. When there is a contradiction between the
FIR and subsequent statement, the genuinity of the case became lost and
therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour has committed an error
in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company.
3. Then the owner of the vehicle Smt.Usha sent a notice to the
appellant Insurance Company that she is the owner of the vehicle and
the first respondent Santhosh Kumar approached her for the purchase of
the vehicle and allowed him to take a trial run and the vehicle met with
an accident. The owner of the vehicle/second respondent Smt.Usha
clearly stated in her notice that there was a collusion for the purpose of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 and
Cros.Obj.No.97 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
claiming compensation and therefore, the Insurance Company shall not
settle the compensation in favour of Santhosh Kumar.
4. The first respondent Santhosh Kumar filed an application under
Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act on the ground that he
was a workman and working under the second respondent Smt.Usha. He
was a driver in Indica Car bearing Registration No. TN04 R 6663 which
met with an accident. On 29.01.2015 at about 9.30 p.m., the car met with
an accident and admittedly the owner of the vehicle was the second
respondent. The FIR registered before the police reveals that the Tata
Indica car met with an accident belong to the claimant Santhosh Kumar.
No where in the FIR, the claimant Santhosh Kumar has stated that he
was the workman.
5. It is pertinent to note that the said Santhosh Kumar has further
stated before the police in the complaint that he was running a travels in
the name and style of SR Jayam Travels. When the claimant himself has
stated before the police in the FIR that he was running a travels
company in the name and style of SR Jayam Travels and the Tata Indica
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 and
Cros.Obj.No.97 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
car met with an accident belongs to him, there is no reason to fix the
liability on the Insurance Company by the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that
the original owner of the Indica car was Smt.Usha and she has not
contested the case and some how the parties have colluded and obtained
an order of compensation from the Deputy Commissioner of Labour.
The said Usha sent a notice to the Insurance Company on 15.06.2016
stating that she filed a vakalat for the purpose of contesting the case and
before filing a counter, the case was decided and the award was passed.
Thus, she has not given an opportunity to contest the case before the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the
award itself was obtained behind the back of the owner of the vehicle
and the claimant had concluded by submitting false statements and
obtained an award of compensation.
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that when there are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 and
Cros.Obj.No.97 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
visible contradictions in the factual submission of the parties, then the
case cannot be trusted upon for the purpose of grant of compensation.
The FIR registered by the police categorically enumerates that the said
Santhosh Kumar was running a Travels in the name and style of SR
Jayam Travels. He has further stated that the Tata Indica car met with an
accident belongs to him. However, the car stands in the name of
Smt.Usha. This being the factum stated in the FIR, during the course of
hearing, the claimant has given a false statement that he is a workman
and was working as a driver in the Indica car. Such contradiction is a
vital fact which would disentitle the claimant for getting compensation.
9. Perusal of the entire award reveals that the parties have
colluded and deposed contradictory statement and obtained an award of
compensation. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour taken note of the
FIR and recorded the submissions made in the FIR. However, he failed
to consider those vital aspects as well as the contradictions in the facts.
Such vital contradictions in the facts are to be held against the claimants
and such false claims based on the twisted facts cannot be accepted for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 and
Cros.Obj.No.97 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
grant of compensation.
10. In the present case, the second respondent is the actual owner
of the vehicle and she was not provided an opportunity to defend the
case. Subsequently, she sent a notice to the Insurance Company stating
the fact that the appellant should not disburse the compensation amount.
Based on the letter, an additional document is filed before this Court.
The learned counsel for the respondent claimant was unable to disprove
the contents in the letter.
11. In view of the fact that several contradictions in the FIR, the
affidavit filed by the second respondent as well as the letter sent by the
second respondent to the Insurance Company, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the claimant is not entitled for compensation as
the genuinity of the claim is not established beyond the pale of doubt.
12. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the claim petition
was filed in March 2015 and the compensation was awarded by the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour during May 2015. The short period
during which, the entire adjudication was concluded and no opportunity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 and
Cros.Obj.No.97 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
was provided to the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle, reveals
that there is some discrepancies and contradiction beyond the actual
facts.
13. Thus, the award dated 02.06.2015 in W.C.No.75 of 2015, is
set aside. C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 stands allowed. The appellant
Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount with
accrued interest by filing appropriate application and payments are to be
made through RTGS. Consequently, the Cros.obj.No.97 of 2015 filed by
the claimant stands dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petitions
are also closed. No costs.
22.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
gsk
To
The Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Salem.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 and
Cros.Obj.No.97 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
C.M.A.No.1762 of 2015 and
Cros.Obj.No.97 of 2015 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015
22.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
