M/S.United India Insurance vs Eswaran
2021 Latest Caselaw 1862 Mad

                                                                              C.M.A.No.121 of 2021

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 27.01.2021

                                                        CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

                                                 C.M.A.No.121 of 2021
                                                         and
                                                 C.M.P.No.811 of 2021

                     M/s.United India Insurance
                     Co., Ltd., Divisional Office XI,
                     14, Whites Road,
                     Sudharsun Bldg, 2nd Floor,
                     Chennai – 14                                              ..Appellant
                                                          Vs.

                     1.Eswaran
                     2.M/s.Sundarams Pvt., Ltd.,
                       Old No.2, New No.3,
                       Smith Road, Chennai - 2                                 ..Respondents

                     Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
                     Workman Compensation Act, against the order dated 30.06.2008 made
                     in W.C.No.344 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's
                     Compensation (DCL) at Salem.


                                      For Appellant     : Mr.K.S.Narasimhan




                     1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                C.M.A.No.121 of 2021

                                                  JUDGMENT

The question of law raised in the present appeal is that Whether

the injured was a workman under the Opposite party and whether he had

sustained injuries during the course of employment; Whether the injured

had sustained permanent disability and or loss of earning capacity.

2. Both the question of law cannot be considered as Substantial as

the said questions are with reference to the factual aspects of the case.

The respondent/claimant filed an application, seeking compensation

under the W.C Act on the ground that the 1st respondent was employed

with the 2nd respondent and was receiving a salary. On 7.9.2003, the 1 st

respondent met with an accident and got injured during the course of

employment. Thus, the application was filed seeking compensation. The

Deputy of Labour adjudicated the issues with reference to the

documents and the evidences produced by the respective parties. The

findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour reveals that the

accident occurred during the course of employment and the 1st

respondent was working. Even the driver Mr.Venkatachalam was

examined and he deposed that on 07.9.2003, he was working as a driver

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.121 of 2021

in the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-01-U-7428 and in the same

vehicle, the 1st respondent/claimant was working as a cleaner. Even

during the course of examination, he was consistent in saying that the 1 st

respondent was working as a Cleaner. When the driver of the vehicle

admitted that the 1st respondent was working as a Cleaner, and he

sustained injuries during the course of employment, the Deputy

Commissioner of Labour arrived a conclusion that the accident occurred

during the course of employment and therefore, the 1st respondent is

entitled for compensation. The loss of income was also assessed as 25%,

considering the medical records, more specifically, the Discharge

Summary / Ex.A1.

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour elaborately adjudicated

the issues with reference to the evidence and documents. The accident

was established and the policy was in force at the time of occurrence.

The 1st respondent/claimant was in employment and the injury sustained

during the course of employment. When these factors are established

before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour beyond any pale of doubt,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.121 of 2021

there is no reason whatsoever to consider the question of law now

raised, which is otherwise with reference to the facts.

4. This being the factum, the appellant has not raised any

acceptable Substantial question of law, so as to consider the relief.

Further, the factual aspects were also established before the Deputy

Commissioner of Labour beyond any doubt and therefore, there is no

infirmity or perversity in respect of the award passed.

5. Accordingly, the award dated 30.06.2008 made in W.C.No.344

of 2006 stands confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in

C.M.A.No.121 of 2021 stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.01.2021

kak Index: Yes/No

To

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.121 of 2021

1.The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (DCL), Salem.

2.The Sub-Assistant Registrar, A.E.Section, High Court of Madras.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.121 of 2021

kak

C.M.A.No.121 of 2021

27.01.2021

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