V.Ramanathan vs R.Kalaiyarasi
2022 Latest Caselaw 1133 Mad

                                                                          CMA(MD)No.746 of 2021



                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED: 25.01.2022

                                                   CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

                                           CMA(MD)No.746 of 2021 &
                                            CMP(MD)No.6794 of 2021


                     V.Ramanathan                                    ... Appellant

                                                      vs.


                     1.R.Kalaiyarasi

                     2.R.Gopinath

                     3.R.Kamalakannan

                     4.R.Sumathy

                     5.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
                       No.923, East Coast Chambers,
                       1st Floor, G.N.Shetty Road,
                       T.Nagar, Chennai                         ... Respondents

                     PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of
                     Workmen Compensation Act to set aside the order in EC.No.203 of 2010
                     dated 05.02.2020 on the file of the Joint Commissioner of Labour /
                     Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Trichy.


                                   For Appellant    :Mr.L.Siva for Mr.R.Vijayakumar


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/8
                                                                                      CMA(MD)No.746 of 2021



                                        For Respondents      :Mr.Paul Murugesan
                                                              for Mr.B.Jameel Arasu for R1 to R4

                                                              Mr.C.Deepak for R5



                                                        JUDGMENT

The appellant / employer has filed this appeal against the order in

EC.No.203 of 2010 dated 05.02.2020 on the file of the Joint

Commissioner of Labour / Commissioner of Workmen Compensation,

Trichy.

2. The brief case of the claimants is as follows.

The deceased Rethinasamy was working as a driver in a vehicle

bearing Registration No.TN KA 01 AB 9977, which belongs to the

appellant herein. While driving the vehicle on 18.11.2005 from Trichy to

Bangalore, at about 07.00 am, near Bangalore Lalbagh, the deceased

suffered from sudden chest pain and was taken to the hospital and died in

the Hospital.

3. The 1st respondent is the wife of the deceased and the

respondents 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. They filed EC.No.

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

CMA(MD)No.746 of 2021

203 of 2010, claiming compensation for the demise of Rethinasamy.

The learned Joint Commissioner of Labour after analysing the oral and

documentary evidences on record, awarded a sum of Rs.1,43,455/-

together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, as compensation to

the respondents 1 to 4 / claimants and directed the appellant herein / the

employer of the deceased to pay the compensation. Aggrieved over the

said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. On 01.09.2021, this Court admitted this appeal on the following

substantial questions of law.

"1) Whether the authority was right in fixing the liability upon the appellant when the vehicle has a valid insurance on the date of accident and the Insurance Company is also a party to the proceedings?

2) Whether the authority was right in rejecting the application to set aside the ex-parte award in view of the express provision in Rule 41 of Workmen Compensation Rules, 1924?

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

CMA(MD)No.746 of 2021

3) Whether the authority was right in condoning the delay and restoring the claim petition without notice to the appellant?

4) Whether the authority was right in proceeding with the enquiry without intimating the restoration of the claim petition to the appellant?

5) Whether the authority was right in directing the appellant to pay the compensation when the prayer in the claim petition is directed against the Insurance Company?"

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on the

date of the accident there is valid Insurance Policy for the vehicle bearing

Registration No.TN KA 01 AB 9977. The Insurance Company has also

filed a counter admitting the existence of the Insurance Policy. While so,

the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour erred in directing the appellant

to pay compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company ought to

be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Further, the claim

petition was dismissed for default on 20.08.2013 and the learned Joint

Commissioner of Labour without even issuing notice, has condoned the

delay of 1644 days in filing the restoration petition and has allowed the

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

CMA(MD)No.746 of 2021

restoration petition filed by the claimants. Since no notice was issued to

the appellant while allowing the restoration petition, the appellant was

unable to produce the Insurance Policy Copy before the learned Joint

Commissioner of Labour and an exparte award came to be passed on

05.02.2020. The learned counsel therefore prayed that, since there is

valid Insurance Policy on the date of the accident, the appellant should

be exonerated from paying compensation to the claimants.

6. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent / Insurance

Company would submit that there is no RC book and permit for the

vehicle bearing Registration No.TN KA 01 AB 9977. Further, the

deceased / driver of the vehicle was not in possession of valid driving

licence on the date of the accident. The learned Joint Commissioner of

Labour after properly analysing the materials on record, fixed the

liability on the appellant herein and the same need not be disturbed.

7. The employer - employee relationship between the appellant

and the deceased is admitted by the parties. The deceased died during

the course of the employment. In the counter filed before the learned

Joint Commissioner of Labour, the Insurance Company has admitted that

there is valid Insurance Policy for the vehicle on the date of the accident. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA(MD)No.746 of 2021

It is pertinent to point out that Insurance Policy would be issued by the

Insurance Company only after verifying the RC book and permit of the

vehicle. While there is a valid Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company

cannot raise objections regarding the RC book and permit. The

Insurance Company had also taken a stand that the deceased / driver of

the vehicle was not in possession of valid driving licence on the date of

the accident. However, a perusal of the records shows that the deceased /

driver of the vehicle had valid driving licence on the date of the accident

and the same was marked as Ex.P3. Therefore, since the employer -

employee relationship between the appellant - deceased / driver of the

vehicle is admitted, the death occurred during the course of employment

and there is valid Insurance Policy for the vehicle, the Insurance

Company is liable to compensate the respondents 1 to 4 / claimants.

Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of

the appellant.

8. It is made clear that the respondents 1 to 4 / claimants are not

entitled to interest for the default period of 1644 days.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant

would contend that the appellant has deposited the entire compensation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CMA(MD)No.746 of 2021

amount together with interest and costs before the learned Joint

Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirappalli. Since the appellant is hereby

exonerated from his liability, he is at liberty to withdraw the amount

deposited by him together with interests and costs after following due

process of law.

10. In the result,

(i) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

(ii) The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

confirmed.

(iii) The fifth respondent / Insurance Company is directed to

deposit the compensation awarded by the Tribunal ie., Rs.1,43,455/-

together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim

petition till the date of deposit ( exempting interest for the default period

of 1644 days) to the credit of EC.No.203 of 2010 on the file of the Joint

Commissioner of Labour / Commissioner of Workmen Compensation,

Trichy within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this Judgment.

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

CMA(MD)No.746 of 2021

S.ANANTHI, J.

mbi

(iv) On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 4 / claimants

are at liberty to withdraw the same in the following apportionment after

following due process of law. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents are

entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- each along with proportionate interest

and costs. The 1st respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.68,455/- along

with proportionate interest and costs.

25.01.2022

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

mbi

To

The Joint Commissioner of Labour/ Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Trichy

CMA(MD)No.746 of 2021

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