The Branch Manager vs R.Rajalakshmi
2022 Latest Caselaw 7331 Mad

                                  BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                DATED: 07.04.2022

                                                       CORAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

                                            C.M.A(MD)No.950 of 2012

                     The Branch Manager,
                     United India Insurance Company Limited,
                     Micro Office,
                     Nattammai Complex,
                     213/18, Odaikarai Street
                     Kambum                      :Appellant/Third respondent

                                                .vs.

                     1.R.Rajalakshmi

                     2.Minor Krishnaveni

                     3.Minor Meena

                     4.Minor Madhubala

                     5.Minor Ramakrishnan        :Respondents 1 to 5 /Petitioners
                                                                        1 to 5
                     (Respondents 2 to 5, being minors, represented
                     through their mother and natural guardian, the
                     first respondent herein)

                     6.R.Pandia Rajan                  :Respondent No.6/Ist Respondent

                     7.R.Chandran                      :Respondent No.7/2nd Respondent

                     8.M.Palanichamy                   :Respondent No.8/4th Respondent

                     9.The Manager,
                       Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
                       Theni.                   :Respondent No.9/5th Respondent


                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
                     Workmen Compensation Act praying this Court to set aside the
                     order, dated 30.11.2011, served on the appellant on 13.01.2012,
                     made in W.C.No.17 of 2007, on the file of the Commissioner of
                     Workmen            Compensation(Deputy        Commissioner     of     Labour),
                     Dindigul.
                                        For Appellant              :Mr.D.Balasubramanian

                                        For Respondents            :Mr.R.A.Manoharan
                                              1 to 5

                                        For Respondents            :No appearance
                                              6 to 9

                                                    JUDGMENT

*********

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the

order, dated 30.11.2011, served on the appellant on 13.01.2012,

made in W.C.No.17 of 2007, on the file of the Commissioner of

Workmen Compensation(Deputy Commissioner of Labour),

Dindigul.

2.The Insurance Company is the appellant herein challenging

the award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen

Compensation(Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul under the

Workmen Compensation Act. They preferred an appeal challenging

the finding rendered by the Tribunal stating that the claimant is not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis an workman on the owner of the vehicle, who has subsequently

purchased the vehicle.

3.The respondents 1 to 5/Petitioners, who are the legal

representatives of the deceased Ramu, filed a claim petition seeking

compensation for the loss of life of the said deceased following the

motor accident took place on 9.6.2006. While the

deceased/Loadman/Ramu was standing on the road side hit by the

tractor-cum-trailor bearing Registration No.TN 45 Z 2760 and TN 65

5319 respectively. The manner of the accident detailed in the

Petition filed by the Petitioners as stated above. According to the

Petitioners after unloading the sand load in the land of one Sait,

the deceased Ramu/Load man and one Vethamuthu who

accompanied him were standing on the road side and at that time,

due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor

portion got out of control and hit the deceased who succumbed to

injurites on the spot itself.

4.The case of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the

first respondent is not only the owner of the tractor and trailor and

there is no employment under him. The said contention was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis negatived by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour on the ground

that in view of the statement given by P.W.1 to P.W.3, there exists

an employer-employee relationship and in the course of his

employment, Ramu who was working as a Loadman met with an

accident and accordingly granted compensation.

5.After perusing the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, I find that the

finding rendered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is well

considered and well merited, which does not warrant any

intererence at this appellate Stage. The calculation made by the

Deputy Commissioner of Labour, appears to be just and fair and

hence the award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli

is confirmed and thus the appeal fails.

6.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands

dismissed. No costs.

07.04.2022

Index:Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

vsn

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

1.The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul.

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

vsn

JUDGMENT MADE IN C.M.A(MD)No.950 of 2012

07.04.2022

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