Madras High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Saravanan @ Saravanakumar on 19 November, 2021
C.M.A.(MD) No.1671 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
C.M.A.(MD) No.1671 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 & 1 of 2009
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
66, Melapulivar Road
Tiruchirapalli ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Saravanan @ Saravanakumar
2.Chitra
3.Loganathan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923, to set aside the Judgment and Decree, dated
12.09.2008 in W.C.No.304 of 2007, on the file of the Workmen Compensation
Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Tiruchirappalli.
For Appellant : Mrs.J.Maria Rubit
for Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents : No appearance for R1 & R2
Mr.V.Kannan for R3
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.1671 of 2008
JUDGMENT
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the Insurance
Company challenging the Award dated 12.09.2008 in W.C.No.304 of 2007, on
the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner
of Labour), Tiruchirappalli, on the grounds that the insurance policy had not
been transferred in the name of the third respondent and that the second
respondent has sold the vehicle to the third respondent and that the employee
met with an accident while he was in employment under the third respondent.
2. To be noted that the factum of employment of the first respondent
under him has been admitted by the third respondent. The relevant portion of
the statement made by the third respondent is extracted hereunder:
“Kd;whk; vjph;kDjhuh; jdJ gjpYiuapy; tpgj;J thfdk;
jdf;F brhe;jkhdJ vdt[k; kDjhuh; jd;dplk; Xl;Leuhfg;
gzpg[hpe;jij xg;g[f;bfhs;tjhft[k; gzpapil tpgj;jpy;
fhakile;jij xg;g[f;bfhs;tjhft[k; kDjhuh; bgw;W te;j
rk;gsj;ij kWg;gjhft[k; jA;fs; thfdj;ij nuz;lhtJ
vjph;kDjhuhplk; fhg;gPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhy; jA;fisg;
bghWj;jtiu kD js;Sgo bra;a Btz;Lbkd;Wk;
Bfl;Lf;bfhz;ldh;.””
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.1671 of 2008
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in
terms of Section 50 read with Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, if
no name transfer has taken place, the existing owner of the vehicle will have
to pay the compensation and liability cannot be foisted on the Insurance
Company. As the employer, even though admitted the employment, has not
produced any document before the Authority concerned to prove the wages of
the workman. Further, Even though the third respondent was not originally
made as a party to the proceedings before the Authority concerned,
subsequently, he was made as a party to the proceedings.
4. At this juncture, it may be relevant to note that the Honourable
Supreme Court in Firdaus vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and
others [(2017) 15 SCC 674] has categorically held that even if the vehicle
stand transferred to the name of another person, the liability of the insurer to
pay compensation to the third party shall not cease. The relevant portion of
the said decision is extracted hereunder:
“16. In view of the above, it is not necessary for us
to give any concluded finding regarding ownership of the
vehicle No.HR 2 G 1875 on the date of accident for the
purpose of this case. In either of the eventuality, i.e. whether
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.1671 of 2008
defendant no.1 was the owner of the vehicle on the date of
the accident, or defendant no.4 was the owner of the vehicle,
the liability of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. continues and
Workmen compensation Commissioner has rightly fastened
the liability on the Insurance Company. The remand made by
the High court to find out as to whether Parvez Khan was an
employee of the defendant no.1 or not, was unnecessary.”
5. Furthermore, violation of the insurance policy will not pave way
for the Insurance Company to pay the amount claimed under the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 are completely different and of course, when relief
under one enactment is invoked, the other enactment cannot be invoked again
for the purpose of claiming compensation for the same accident.
6. A cursory perusal of the materials available on record shows that
the respondents 2 and 3 have violated the provisions of Sections 50 and 157
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Since the offending vehicle has been
purchased by the third respondent and that the factum of employment has
been admitted by the third respondent and as per the statement of the third
respondent extracted above, this Court is of the view that the third
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.1671 of 2008
respondent, who is owner of the vehicle, alone is liable to pay compensation to
the workman as determined by the Authority concerned.
7. As the appellant – Insurance Company has already deposited the
entire award amount, the claimant shall withdraw the same and it is open to
the appellant – Insurance Company to recover the same from the third
respondent in the manner known to law.
8. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.11.2021
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the Judgment may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the
Judgment that is presented is the
correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.1671 of 2008
To:
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Workmen Compensation Commissioner,
Tiruchirappalli.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) No.1671 of 2008
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
krk
C.M.A.(MD) No.1671 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 & 1 of 2009
19.11.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
