Madras High Court
M/S.Reliance General Insurance ... vs Mr.P.Karthikeyan on 27 January, 2021
C.M.A.No.151 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.1899 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.151 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.1899 of 2018
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.2054, 2nd Avenue Road,
2nd Floor, Rai's Tower,
Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.
..Appellant
Vs.
1.Mr.P.Karthikeyan
2.Mr.B.Palani ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923, against the order made in
E.C.No.157 of 2012, dated 04.04.2016, on the file of the Commissioner
of Workmen Compenstion, Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan
1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.151 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.1899 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The award dated 04.04.2016 passed in W.C.No.157 of 2012, is
under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.
2. The substantial question of law raised in the present appeal is
whether the appellant could be liable to pay compensation when the
driver had no driving licence which is the breach of policy conditions.
3. The accident occurred on 19.08.2012 at about 3.30 a.m. When
the claimant was driving a car bearing Registration No.TN 22 CY 8537
from Tambaram to Puzhal, the accident occurred and the claimant
sustained grievous head injuries. An application was filed seeking
compensation.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour considered the
documents and evidences and accordingly, passed an award granting a
sum of Rs.3,43,108/- as compensation.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.151 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.1899 of 2018
5. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the
driver was not holding a badge at the time of the accident. Therefore, the
Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mukunth
Dewargan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in
2017 ACJ 2011, held that the absence of badge is not the sole criteria to
deny the benefit of compensation to the victim. In the present case, the
driving licence was available. When the driver was possessing driving
licence and the accident occurred, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour
is right in granting compensation.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is
no acceptable question of law raised in the present appeal for the
purpose of interfering with the award passed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour. In other aspects, the factum regarding the
accident was established and the employee employer relationship was
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.151 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.1899 of 2018
also proved. The accident occurred during the course of the
employment. Therefore, there is no perversity or infirmity as such.
8. Accordingly, the award dated 04.04.2016 passed in
W.C.No.157 of 2012 is confirmed and C.M.A.No.151 of 2018 stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
9. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with
accrued interest by filing appropriate application before the competent
authority and payments are to be made through RTGS.
27.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
gsk
To
The Commissioner of Workmen Compenstion and
Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.151 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.1899 of 2018
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
gsk
C.M.A.No.151 of 2018 and
C.M.P.No.1899 of 2018
27.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
