Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Kavidasan ... 1St on 19 November, 2021
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1534 & 1535 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) Nos.1534 & 1535 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.2 & 2 of 2008
The Branch Manager
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
92, G.N.Ghetty Street
T.Nagar, Chennai ... Appellant in both appeals
-vs-
1.Kavidasan ... 1st Respondent in C.M.A.
(MD) No.1534 of 2008
2.Rahuman ... 1st Respondent in C.M.A.
(MD) No.1535 of 2008
3.Balamurugan ... 2nd Respondent in both appeals
PRAYER (in C.M.A.(MD) No.1534 of 2008): Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, to set aside the award
dated 29.02.2008, passed by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichy, in W.C.No.395 of 2005.
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1534 & 1535 of 2008
PRAYER (in C.M.A.(MD) No.1535 of 2008): Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, to set aside the award
dated 29.02.2008, passed by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichy, in W.C.No.396 of 2005.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sankar
(in both C.M.As.) for Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
For Respondents : No appearance
(in both C.M.As.)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These civil miscellaneous appeals have been preferred challenging
the orders dated 29.02.2008 in W.C.Nos.395 & 396 of 2005, passed by the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Commissioner of Workmen Compensation,
Trichy, granting compensation to the loadman Kavidasan and cleaner
Rahuman, who are the first respondent herein and having met with an
accident and suffered injuries in the course and out of the employment. The
second respondent in both the appeals is the owner of the light goods carriage
vehicle.
2. According to the appellant – Insurance Company, there is a
violation of policy conditions and that there cannot be any cleaner engaged in
____________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1534 & 1535 of 2008
a light goods carriage vehicle and he is not covered by the insurance policy
and no amount of compensation can be foisted on the Insurance Company.
Further, according to the appellant – Insurance Company, when the goods
carriage vehicle having one seat capacity and of less than 500 kgs. unladen
weight, the Authority was erred in awarding compensation and foisting it on
the appellant needs to be interfered with.
3. The respondents have been served and none appeared for the
owner of the Auto, namely, Balamurugan and no counsel has entered
appearance for workmen.
4. From a reading of the order, it is very clear that the vehicle
bearing registration No.TN45 AD1859 has a valid policy and that second
respondent Balamurugan is the owner of the vehicle. Merely because the
insurance policy is valid, it does not mean that the Insurance Company shall
be foisted with the liability to pay compensation. It is not in dispute that the
loadman and the cleaner are employed by the second respondent. The second
respondent has permitted them to go in the said vehicle, which ultimately met
with an accident and those two employees suffered injuries in the course and
out of the employment. Hence, the factum of accident as well as the
____________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1534 & 1535 of 2008
employer-employee relationship between the workmen and Balamurugan is
not in dispute. The relief that may be granted under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 is completely different from the one that may be granted under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In the present case on hand, as there is
a valid insurance policy, this Court is of the view that the amount determined
by the Authority concerned, which is in deposit, shall be withdrawn by the
claimants. For violation of policy conditions, it is needless to mention that the
Insurance Company shall proceed against the owner of the vehicle to recover
the amount payable to the claimants.
5. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeals are 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
____________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1534 & 1535 of 2008
To:
1.The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour),
Trichy.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
____________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1534 & 1535 of 2008
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
krk
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1534 & 1535 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.2 & 2 of 2008
19.11.2021
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.1534 & 1535 of 2008
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
