Madras High Court
M/S.The Oriental Insurance Co. ... vs Thiru K.Iyappan on 25 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.1689 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25-01-2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
CMA No.1689 of 2016
And
CMP No.12852 of 2016
M/s.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Jamby Bala Complex,
Arcot Road,
Vellore. .. Appellant
vs.
1.Thiru K.Iyappan
2.Thiru S.Ravi .. Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the
Workmen Compensation Act, against the Award dated 14.09.2015 made in
W.C.No.257 of 2013 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I,
Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Chandran
For Respondents : Ms.R.Janaki
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1689 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The Award dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
of Labour-I, Chennai in WC No.257 of 2013, is under challenge in the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company is the appellant and the
substantial questions of law raised are that in the absence of established
valid permit license, whether the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is right in
fixing the liability on the Insurance Company; when the claimant had driven
the vehicle, which met with an accident, on what basis he filed the claim
petition, holding if he is the Cleaner of the Lorry, whether the contradictory
statements made by the claimant for getting compensation can be accepted
by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour for grant of compensation and in
the absence of any driving license, the liability cannot be fixed on the
Insurance Company as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour committed an error in awarding
compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1689 of 2016
3. Claim petition was filed by the first respondent Mr.Iyyappan on
the ground that on 11.07.2011 at about 02.30 P.M., the first respondent-
claimant was working as a Tanker Lorry Cleaner bearing Registration
No.KA-05-A-7092 and he was proceeding from Krishnagiri to Kuppam
Road, Madanakuppam near lake. At the time, a dog crossed the road and the
lorry driver lost the balance and dashed against a Palm Tree and the lorry
got capsized. The claimant sustained grievous injuries, including fracture
and he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri as inpatient
and taken treatment subsequently at CMC Hospital, Vellore.
4. Claim petition was filed and the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and
evidences.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance
Company mainly contended that there are many contradictions in the claim
petition itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1689 of 2016
6. The claimant was driving the lorry on the day of accident and
he was not holding a valid permit license. Thus, the liability cannot be fixed
on the appellant-Insurance Company.
7. The contention raised, in this regard, by the appellant-
Insurance Company was not properly appreciated by the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, while fixing the liability. Therefore, the present
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.
8. Undoubtedly, the parties have not produced the driving license.
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour made a finding that both the
Krishnamoorthy, driver of the vehicle and the claimant, in which the
claimant was working as Cleaner, have not produced any driving license.
Even as per the charge sheet, the fixed driver Mr.Munirathinam was
possessing a driving license. However, a copy of the license was not marked
as a document by either of the parties.
9. The factum regarding the accident was established. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1689 of 2016
witnesses deposed that the claimant Mr.Iyappan was working as Cleaner in
the lorry. One Mr.Krishnamoorty was the driver.
10. The findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, in this
regard, are extracted hereunder:-
“vdpDk; k/rh/M/4 nkhl;lhu; thfd
Ma;thsu; mwpf;ifapid guprPyid
bra;jjpy; tpgj;jpw;Fs;shd nfV?05?V?7082
thfdj;jpd; Xl;Leu; fpUc;&zK:u;j;jp vd;gJ
bjupa tUfpwJ/ nkYk; v/k/rh/M/1Mf
jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s tprhuiz
mwpf;ifapy; jpU/,s';nfhtd; kw;Wk;
jpU/fpUc&;zd; vd;gtu;fsplk; tprhuiz
bra;jnghJ jpU/ma;ag;gd; jhd; nkw;go
thfdj;jpd; fpsPdu; vd;Wk;. 11/07/2011
md;W Vw;gl;l tpgj;jpy; ma;ag;gDf;F
fha';fs; Vw;gl;Ls;sjhft[k;.
bjuptpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkYk; nkw;go
thfdj;jpd; Xl;Leu; Kdpuj;jpdk; Fw;wtpay;
tHf;fpy; U:/2.500-? Mguhjk; fl;oa[s;shu;
vd;W Twpa[s;s ,uz;lhk; vjpu;kDjhuu;
jug;gpy; mguhjk; fl;oajw;fhd Mtz';fs;
Vjk; ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1689 of 2016
epU:gzk; bra;ag;gltpy;iy/ nkYk; nkw;go
thfdj;jpd; Xl;Leu; ahu; vd;gJ Fwpj;j
tpguj;jpid mwpa[k; bghUl;L Kjy;
vjpu;kDjhuiu ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy;
M$u;gLj;jp j';fsJ Tw;wpid epU:gzk;
bra;atpy;iy/ nkYk; nkw;go thfdj;jpy;
Xl;Leu; ahuhf ,Ue;jhYk;. ,t;tHf;fpd;
kDjhuu; nkw;go tpgj;jpw;Fs;shd
thfdj;jpd; fpsPdu; vd;gJ bjspthfpa[s;s
epiyapy;. nkw;go thfdj;jpd; Xl;LeUf;F
bry;yj;jf;f Xl;Leu; cupkk; ,y;iy vd
thjpLk; ,uz;lhk; vjpu;kDjhuu; jug;gpy;
nkw;go thfdj;ij Xl;oajhf Twg;gLk;
Xl;Leu;fspd; Xl;Leu; cupkk; Vjk; jhf;fy;
bra;ag;gltpy;iy/ nkYk; v/k/rh/M/1Mf
jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l g[ydha;t[ mwpf;ifapy;
Xl;Leu; Fwpj;j tpguj;jpy; As per Charge
Sheet-Fixed Driver jpU/Kdpuj;jpdk; vd;W
Fwpg;gplg;gl;L. tpgj;jpd;nghJ mtuJ
Xl;Leu; cupkk; bry;yj;jf;fjhf cs;sJ
vd;Wk; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;snj jtpu.
tpgj;jpw;Fs;shd thfdj;ij Xl;oajhf
Twg;gLk; kw;w Xl;Leu;fspy; Xl;Leu; cupkk;
Fwpj;J g[ydha;t[ bra;ag;gltpy;iy/@
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1689 of 2016
11. In view of the fact that the Insurance Company could not able
to establish that the driver was not possessing the valid driving license and
the claimant could able to establish that the employer-employee relationship
existed and he sustained injuries during the accident, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour awarded compensation.
12. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Workmen
Compensation Act is a Welfare Legislation and any minor contradictions
cannot be a ground to decline the grant of compensation. Contradictions,
though stated, was not established by the appellant-Insurance Company
before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Thus, this Court is not inclined
to accept the grounds raised in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
13. Accordingly, the Award dated 14.09.2015 passed in W.C.
No.257 of 2013 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, stands
confirmed and consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1689 of 2015
stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1689 of 2016
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
14. The respondent-claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire
Award amount with accrued interest by filing 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.1689 of 2016
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1689 of 2016
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Svn
C.M.A.No.1689 of 2016
25-01-2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
