Madras High Court
The Management vs Thirupathi : Ist on 6 April, 2023
2023/MHC/1755
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.324 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3967 of 2023
The Management,
Sriram General Insurance Company Limited,
E-888, RIICO Industrial Estate,
Sithapura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan :Appellant/Second respondent
.vs.
1.Thirupathi : Ist Respondent/Petitioner
2.S.Amutha :2nd Respondent/Ist Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section30 of the
Employee Compensation Act against the order passed in E.C.No.
216 of 2013, dated 11.09.2018, on the file of the Employees
Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour
Tribunal at Tiruchirappalli insofar as liability to pay the
compensation is concerned.
For Appellant :Mr.V.Sakthivel
For Respondents :No appearance
1 and 2
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
JUDGMENT
*************
Challenging the award passed by the Workmen Compensation
Commissioner to the tune of Rs.7,73,805/- the present Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed by the appellant/Insurance
Company.
2.The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal is
as follows:
The injured was working as Cleaner in a lorry bearing
Registration No.TAE 4055 and on 8.5.2013 at about 12.30 a.m.,
while the goods were unloaded, the Petitioner was in sleep and at
that time, the driver of the lorry reversed the lorry and as a result,
the wheels of the lorry run over the the Petitioner and both the
legs got fractured and thereafter, he rushed to the hospital and in
this regard the crime was registered in Crime No.143 of 2013
before the Thirupatthur Police Station, Sivagangai District against
the driver of the lorry and the Petitioner sustained permanent
disability. At the time of accident, the Petitioner was earning a sum
of Rs.8,000/-p.m. Hence the Petitioner claimed compensation.
3.The defense set up by the appellant Insurance Company is
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the effect that the cheque issued towards policy is dishonourned
and the policy has also been cancelled. Therefore according to the
appellant,they are not liable to pay the award amount
4.Before the Tribunal, On the side of the Petitioner/claimant,
P.W.1 and P.W.2 was marked and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On
the side of the respondent,R.W.1 was marked and Ex.R1 was
marked.
5.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, after analyzing the
evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.5,73,805/- as
compensation and challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.
6.Though a defense was taken by the appellant Insurance
Company to the effect that the dishonour of the cheque resulted in
the cancellation of the policy, there was no evidence whatsoever
produced in this regard before the Deputy Commisioner of Labour
Further, the dishonour of the cheque was not intimated to the
owner of the vehcile and no document was filed in this regard.
Similarly the dishonour of the cheque was not filed before the
Tribunal. That apart, the cancellation of the policy was also not
intimated to the owner.Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
very dishonour of the cheque was not intimated and the same has
also not been proved in the manner known to law and merely on
the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company, dishonour of the cheque cannot be
countenanced. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no
merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7.Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at
the admission stage itself and hence the framing of substantial
questions of law does not arise. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the award amount has already been
deposited before the Tribnal and hence the Petitioner/claimant is
permitted to withdraw the same, if not already withdrawn, by filing
necessary application before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
06.04.2023
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
vsn
To
1.The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour),
Thiruchirappalli.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR.,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
C.M.A(MD)No.324 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.3967 of 2023
06.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
