Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs R.Dharman on 25 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.1534 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25-01-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
CMA No.1534 of 2016
And
CMP No.11682 of 2016
And
CMP No.4981 of 2017
The Branch Manager,
M/s.New India Assurance Company,
Bedford, Coonoor,
Nilgiris District. .. Appellant
vs.
1.R.Dharman
2.D.Devi
3.D.Ragupathy
4.S.Rajamani .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the
Workmen Compensation Act, against the Award dated 24.05.2016 (received
on 27.05.2016) made in E.C.No.34 of 2011 on the file of the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1534 of 2016
For Appellant : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam
For Respondents : Mr.C.Mouli
JUDGMENT
The Award dated 24.05.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour, Coonoor in EC No.34 of 2011, is under challenge in the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. Respondents 1 to 3 are the claimants in EC No.34 of 2011. The
son of the respondents 1 and 2, namely late D.Pasupathy, was working as a
Driver in a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-43-6340. While he was
returning from Kothagiri to his village namely sullygude and when he was
approaching near Pudur, the vehicle met with an accident and the deceased
Pasupathy sustained serious injuries and died on the way to Hospital.
3. It is contended that the said Pasupathy died during the course
of employment. The case was contested by the appellant-Insurance
Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1534 of 2016
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour adjudicated the issues
and arrived a conclusion that as per the Registration Certificate Book of the
vehicle, which met with an accident, the fourth respondent Mr.S.Rajamani
was the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with the appellant-
Insurance Company. Therefore, the deceased was impliedly employed by
the fourth respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle and therefore,
compensation is to be awarded.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made a
submission that even as per the application, the deceased was employed by
his own father, however, his father-first respondent was not the owner of the
vehicle and therefore, liability cannot be fixed on the appellant-Insurance
Company.
6. This Court is of the considered opinion that Workmen
Compensation Act is the Welfare Legislation. The definition of the word
“employed” enumerates that “whether the contract of employment was made
before or after the passing of this Act and whether the contract is express or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1534 of 2016
implied, oral or in writing”. Therefore, wider scope has been provided in
the Statute, so as to cover even implied and oral employments.
7. In the present case, admittedly, the fourth respondent is the
owner of the vehicle. Though it is stated that the vehicle belongs to the
fourth respondent was produced by the first respondent, who is the father of
the deceased, the record reveals that at the time of accident, the fourth
respondent was the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, for the purpose of grant
of compensation, it is to be impliedly held that the fourth respondent owner
had given a consent for driving the vehicle, which met with an accident and
the implied employment in the present case is to be held in favour of the
claimants for getting compensation.
8. There is no express employment and there is no oral
employment was established. However, 'implied' employment is to be taken
into consideration for the purpose of grant of compensation, as the vehicle
which met with an accident stands in the name of the fourth respondent and
the vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1534 of 2016
9. Though it is contended that the deceased was not possessing a
valid driving license, the said factum was not established during the trial.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to consider the said ground at this length of
time in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
10. As far as the liability is concerned, there was an implied
employment between the fourth respondent-owner and the deceased and
based on such implied employment, the liability is to be fixed on the
appellant-Insurance Company, as the insurance policy also was in force at
the time of accident.
11. Accordingly, the Award dated 24.05.2016 passed in E.C.
No.34 of 2011 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor, stands
confirmed and consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1534 of 2016
stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1534 of 2016
12, The claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire Award
amount with accrued interest by filing an appropriate application and
payments are to be made through RTGS.
25-01-2021
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Svn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1534 of 2016
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Coonoor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1534 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
C.M.A.No.1534 of 2016
25-01-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
