Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Ramu on 21 December, 2022
CMA(MD)No.1421 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 21.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.M.A(MD) No.1421 of 2008
The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
147, Salai Road,
Ramnadu District. ... Appellant/Respondent No.2
-Vs-
1.Ramu
2.Minor Kanimalar
3.Minor Mangaleswari ...Respondents 1 to 3/Petitioners
4.R.Manikavasagam ...Respondent No.4/Respondent No.1
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen
Compensation Act against the order dated 26.06.2008 made in W.C.No.109 of
2005 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy
Commissioner of Labour), Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Vijay Karthikeyan
For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Aravindan
For R4 : Mr.P.T.S.Narendravasan
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1421 of 2008
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2008 made in W.C.No.109 of
2005 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy
Commissioner of Labour), Madurai, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred
by the Insurance Company.
2. The Claim Petition was filed by the wife of the deceased, who sustained
fatal injury while travelling in Tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-65-D-0657 owned by
the first respondent therein, namely Manikavasagam. On 03.10.2004, in the
course of his employment, the deceased was travelling in Trailor attached to the
Tractor near Trukkal bus stop within T.U. Mangai police limit and due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor, who applied sudden break to avoid
a culvert, the deceased, who was travelling in the Tractor, was thrown out and
sustained head injury leading to his death.
3. According to the claimants, the deceased was employed under the first
respondent as load man and in the course of his employment, the accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1421 of 2008
occurred. The said contention has been disputed by the Insurance Company
relying upon the First Information Report, wherein it is stated that the deceased
while travelling in the mudguard of the Tractor was thrown out from the Tractor
and he was not employed under the first respondent since there is no employer
and employee relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the deceased and
therefore, the petition under the Workmen Compensation Act is not maintainable.
4. The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner
of Labour), Madurai, after examining the deposition relied on by the claimants
and the Insurance Company, has arrived at a conclusion that though the owner of
the vehicle has given a letter by stating that there is no relationship between the
owner of the vehicle and the deceased, the said letter is not proved in the manner
known to law. Contrarily, the co-passenger-P.W.2 being an eye witness, who
accompanied in the travel, has explained how the accident has occurred in the
course of employment. The Tribunal has relied upon his evidence and held that
there was employer and employee relationship. Therefore, the Claim Petition
under the Workmen Compensation Act is maintainable. The Tribunal, having
considered the other evidence and the earning capacity of the deceased, has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1421 of 2008
awarded a compensation of Rs.3,64,489/- (Rupees Three Lakhs, Sixty Four
Thousand, Four Hundred and Eight Nine only) with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum.
5. Being aggrieved by the liability and quantum of compensation, the
present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal
has erred in holding that there was employer and employee relationship, which is
contrary to the documentary evidence particularly Ext.R.4, the letter of the owner
who is arrayed as the first respondent in the Claim Petition. The further
contention of the Insurance Company is that the Tractor, which was insured, has
only one seating capacity for travel and it cannot accommodate any other
passenger. While so, the deceased, who was travelling as an unauthorized
passenger, cannot be compensated by the Insurance Company. It is the owner of
the vehicle, who is liable to pay the compensation.
6. Contrarily, the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 3
would submit that the appeal itself is not maintainable because it is not
accompanied by the Certificate mandated for preferring the appeal indicating the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1421 of 2008
deposit of Rs.25,000/-. Further even assuming the appeal is maintainable, it is
devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed since the claimant has proved beyond
doubt that the deceased was employed under the first respondent and the accident
took place during the course of employment.
7. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submission made on
either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
8. There is no doubt that the deceased Lakshmanan had sustained injuries
due to the fall from the Tractor on the fateful date. The Tractor bearing
Reg.No.TN-65-D-0657 belongs to the first respondent and it was insured under
the appellant herein. The insurance policy does not indicate whether the Insurance
to the Tractor includes the Trailor. In this regard, the deposition of R.W.2 gains
significance. D.W.1, Narayanan, is the Administrative Officer of the appellant
Insurance Company, he admitted that the Tractor was insured under them and they
appointed an Investigating Officer and found that the said Lakshmanan was not
employed under the owner of the Tractor. In fact, the letter alleged to have been
given by the owner of the vehicle has been marked as Ext.R.4. However, neither
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1421 of 2008
the Investigating Officer nor the author of the letter were confronted with the
letter. D.W.2 has categorically deposed that the Insurance coverage includes the
Trailor. P.W.2, who is an eye witness/co-passenger, admitted that he travelled
along with the deceased and saw the accident.
9. Considering all the abovesaid aspects, this Court holds that the
contention of the appellant to disown the liability on the ground that the deceased
Lakshmanan was not employed with the owner of the vehicle is unfounded and
contrary evidence available. Finding no merits in this appeal, the same is
dismissed. Accordingly, the order dated 26.06.2008 made in W.C.No.109 of 2005
on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy
Commissioner of Labour), Madurai, is confirmed. No costs.
Index : Yes / No 21.12.2022
Internet : Yes / No
CM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1421 of 2008
To,
1. The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of
Labour), Madurai.
2. The Section Officer, V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA(MD)No.1421 of 2008
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
CM
C.M.A(MD) No.1421 of 2008
21.12.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
