Madras High Court
M/S.Reliance General Insurance ... vs A.Mariyadoss on 3 March, 2022
CMA.No.3517 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CMA.No.3517 of 2017
M/s.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Rai's Tower, Plot No.2054,
2nd Avenue, 2nd Floor,
(Next to Senthil Nursing Home),
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. ...Appellant
v.
1.A.Mariyadoss
2.Asan Ali ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 30 of Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923, against the order in E.C.No.379 of 2012 dated
15.03.2017 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,
Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Vijayaragavan
For R1 : Mr.Terry Chella Raja
for Mr.K.M.Ramesh
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3517 of 2017
The 2nd respondent in E.C.No.379 of 2012 which was adjudicated
by the Deputy Commissioner for Employees Compensation Labour – II,
Chennai is the appellant herein.
2.The applicant was a driver under the 1 st respondent and was
driving a TATA ACE van bearing registration No.TN-04-AD-6889. On
19.04.2012 at around 5.30 p.m., while he was discharging his duty and was
in the course of employment as driver for the 1st respondent and driving the
vehicle of the 1st respondent at Puzhal – Maduravayil Bye Pass Road, the
vehicle which was moving in the front applied sudden brakes and the
applicant dashed against the said vehicle and suffered injuries. He was taken
to Government Hospital for treatment. As in patient, he took treatment from
19.04.2012 to 13.06.2012. It is claimed that he is still taking treatment for
the injuries suffered.
3.With respect to the accident which occurred, the Inspector of
Police, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai, had registered the First
Information Report in Crime No.229/GNT/3/2012 under Sections 279 and
337 IPC.
4.It is the case of the claimant in the Employees Compensation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3517 of 2017
Case before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour - II that the accident
occurred when he was discharging duty as driver of the 1 st respondent and
therefore, he was entitled to claim compensation under the aforementioned
Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
5.The 2nd respondent / appellant herein joined issue with the claim
petition and this necessitated trial being undertaken. During the course of
the trial, the applicant A.Mariadoss, was examined as PW-1. The doctor
tendering opinion regarding the injuries suffered and the consequent
disability was examined as PW-2. On the side of the 1 st and 2nd respondents,
three witnesses were examined. The applicant marked Exs.P1 to P10 and the
respondents marked Exs.R1 to R7. The relevant documents would be Ex.P6,
the driving license and Ex.P7, the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector.
Incidentally, Ex.P4 which is the registration certificate of the vehicle must
also be examined. On the part of the respondent, Ex.R5 which is the extract
of the driving license and the insurance policy, Ex.R6 would be relevant to
determine the issues raised.
6.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, proceeded to framed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3517 of 2017
necessary issues. He affirmed that the claimant was actually an employee
under the 1st respondent and also affirmed that the accident occurred when
he was discharging his duty as a driver and also affirmed the age as stated
by the claimant and thereafter proceeded to determine the compensation,
which is to be paid for the injuries suffered.
7.With respect to the compensation, which has to be paid, he took
into consideration the fact that the claimant was in hospital as in patient
from 19.04.2012 to 13.06.2012 for more than two months and also
examined the nature of injuries suffered namely, fracture in the shaft of the
right femur in the right leg. Naturally, that would have affected his further
functioning as driver, which was a skill he had acquired.
8.The appeal has been necessitated owing to the fact that though,
it had been admitted that the claimant was a driver under the 1 st respondent,
he did not have the necessary badge to drive a transport vehicle and
therefore, it was claimed there was violation of a policy condition and the
insurance company abjured their liability.
9.In so far as the compensation which had been granted, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3517 of 2017
Tribunal had determined that the age of the insured A.Mariadoss an 27 years
and determined the disability at 65%. The monthly income was determined
at Rs.6,784/- and on that basis a sum of Rs.5,65,055/- (60/100 x 213.57 x
6784 x 65/100 = 5,65,054.96) granted.
10.The appellant is deeply aggrieved by the fact that the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, had not taken into consideration, the breach of
policy, particularly, under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
has claimed that the principle of pay and recovery should not have been
applied. It had been contended in the absence of a valid badge to drive a
transport vehicle, the liability should not been passed on the insurance
company to pay the compensation amount.
11.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.N.Vijayaragavan, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.Terry Chella Raja
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent.
12.The scope of the appeal is quite narrow. It is a fact that the 2nd
respondent herein was a driver under the 1st respondent. It is a fact that he
was driving a vehicle belonging to the 1 st respondent and was discharging his
duty as driver of the 1st respondent. Therefore, the fact that he was driving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3517 of 2017
the vehicle in the course of his employment, cannot be either disputed or
denied. A claim under the Employment Compensation Act, therefore arises
for consideration. The age of the claimant and his monthly income are
neither disputed nor denied. The quantum of compensation granted again is
not disputed or challenged in this appeal.
13.The issue raised in this appeal, is that the 2 nd respondent did
not have the authority to drive a transport vehicle, which requires a specific
badge to be given and an endorsement made on the driving license of the
driver.
14.However, it is also to be pointed out that the vehicle which was
driven by the 1st respondent was a light motor vehicle a TATA ACE and a
batch is required only for a heavy vehicle and if such an endorsement is not
there on the driving license, quite reasonably the insurance company can
claim there was violation of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In
the instant case, the vehicle was not a heavy vehicle and was a light motor
vehicle and such a badge cannot be insisted upon.
15.Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3517 of 2017
Court in (2017) 14 SCC 663, Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance
Company, wherein, the position of law has been affirmed that for light
motor vehicle endorsement a badge affirming authority to drive it as a
transport vehicle is not required and that absence of such a badge cannot be
construed to be a violation of any of the stipulations under Section 149 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
16.The compensation granted by the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour – II is therefore upheld with the above observations. The Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
03.03.2022
smv
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To:-
The Deputy Commissioner of Labour – II, Chennai.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.3517 of 2017
smv
CMA.No.3517 of 2017
03.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
