Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Mohamed Mahroof ...1St on 28 January, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9084 & 9085 of 2021
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office – IV,
52, South Masi Street,
Maduria – 625 001. ...Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Mohamed Mahroof ...1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.Panchavarnam ...2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Employees Compensation Act, to set aside the order passed by the
Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Madurai in E.C.No.26 of 2014,
dated 05.01.2021 and dismiss the same as against the appellant.
For Appellant :Mr.N.Dilipkumar
For Respondents :No Appearance
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the award passed
by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Madurai, in E.C.No.26 of
2014, dated 05.01.2021
2.It is a case of injury. The claimant was employed as a cleaner under
the first respondent. On 20.02.2012, at 12.30 p.m., the petitioner was
travelling as a cleaner along with driver and another for loading fish in TATA
ACE bearing registration No.TN-65-M-9058 proceeding from Devakottai to
Karaikudi High Way road. While they came near Azhagammai Cotton Mill,
a lorry bearing registration No.TN-45-C-2169 driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner and without any signal was stopped in the middle of
the road. While the driver of the first respondent's lorry overtaking the lorry
and had applied sudden break, dashed behind the lorry. Due to which, the
petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries and fracture.
3.The petitioner has filed a petition in E.C.No.26 of 2014 before the,
Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai, seeking compensation
of Rs.10,00,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021
4.Before the lower Court, on the side of the petitioner, two witnesses
were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and sixteen documents were marked as
Exs.P.1 to P.16. On the side of the second respondent R.W.1 was examined
and one document was marked as Ex.R1 and one Court document was
marked as Ex.C1.
5.The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Maduri after
considering the oral and documentary evidences and arguments made on
either side, held that at the time of accident the petitioner was working as a
cleaner under the first respondent's vehicle insured with the appellant herein
and therefore, fastened liability on the appellant/Insurance Company to pay a
sum of Rs.4,83,383/-, as compensation to the claimant. Against which, the
appellant/second respondent has filed this present appeal.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there
is no material to establish that the claimant was employed under the owner of
the vehicle. In the absence of an employer – employee relationship between
the claimant and the vehicle owner, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay
compensation under the Employees Compensation Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021
7.Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and No representation for the second respondent.
8.On perusal of records it is seen that the Tribunal held that at the time
of accident, the claimant was working as a cleaner under the first
respondent's vehicle insured with the appellant. But there is no documents
filed on the side of the claimant, to establish that the claimant was employed
under the owner of the vehicle. On the other hand, the claimant, who was
examined as PW1 has admitted in his evidence that ''Njtpgl;bdk;>
fPof;fiu> ,uhkehjGuk; Mfpa ,lq;fspy; kPd; tpahghuk;
nra;ag;gLfpwJ vd;why; rhp. ehd; kPid tpiyf;F thq;fp filf;F
tpw;Ngd; vd;why; rhp. NghyP]hh; vd;id tprhhpf;Fk;NghJ ehd;
Njtpgl;bdj;jpy; FbapUe;J tUfpNwd;. kPd; tpahghuk; nra;J
tUfpNwd; vd;why; rhp. ehd;> ehfuh[d; kfd; fz;zd;> Njtpgl;bzk;
Kdpahz;b kfd; tp];tehjd; vd;gth; Xl;Lk; kpdpNlhh; tz;b TN-65-
M-9068 thlif Ngrp kPd;fis Vw;wpf;nfhz;L Njtpgl;bdj;jpypUe;J
Gwg;gl;Nlhk; vd;why; rhpjhd;”.
10.So without considering the evidence, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation to the claimant. But PW1 in his evidence clearly admitted that
he engaged the minidoor vehicle for run and travelled. The second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021
respondent/owner of the vehicle was already set ex-parte before the Tribunal
and also not appear before this Court. So the claimant cannot file a petition
for compensation before the lower Court, since he was not a employer under
the second respondent/owner of the vehicle. The first respondent/petitioner
may claim compensation in some other forum.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order passed
by the Tribunal in E.C.No.26 of 2014 on the file of the Commissioner of
Workmen Compensation, Madurai, is hereby set aside.
12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
28.01.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner,
Madurai.
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.959 of 2021
S.ANANTHI, J.
vsd
Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9084 & 9085 of 2021
28.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
