Anuradha vs M.Mohammed Ismail
2023 Latest Caselaw 4230 Mad

    2023/MHC/1878




                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED: 13.04.2023

                                                     CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                        C.M.A(MD)No.1189 of 2021


                     1.Anuradha

                     2.Minor Nivetha

                     3.Minor Reethika

                     4.Minor Arthi

                     (Appellants 2 to 4, who are minors, are represented by their mother
                     and guardian, the first appellant herein Anuradha)
                                                    :Appellants/Petitioners

                                             .vs.

                     1.M.Mohammed Ismail

                     2.M/s.The New India Assurance Company Limited,
                       Branch Office,
                       85 P,Market Road,
                       Thanjavur.               : Respondents/Respondents


                     PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
                     Employees Compensation At, 1923 against the order made in
                     W.C.No.210 of 2005, dated 6.9.2019, on the file of the Deputy
                     Commissioner of Labour(Workmen Compensation), Trichy.


                                  For Appellant         :Mr.G.Karnan

                                  For Respondent-1       :No appearance


                     1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                       For Respondent-2        :Mrs.P.Malini

                                                   JUDGMENT

*************

Challenging the order made in made in W.C.No.210 of 2005,

dated 6.9.2019, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of

Labour(Workmen Compensation), Trichy.

2.It is the case of the appellant that the deceased Iyyappan

worked as Load-man with the first respondent and on 2.1.2005,

when the said Iyyappan was working as load-man in the lorry of the

first respondent bearing Registration No. TDY 2099 and after

loading timbers in the said lorry and when he was about to travel in

the said lorry, the timbers fell on him and succumbed to injuries

and on the way to hospital for treatment, he died and the said lorry

was insured with the second respondent. Hence the legal heirs of

the said Iyyappan claimed compensation of Rs.10 lakhs and filed

the claim petition.

3.The Insurer has not disputed the insurance coverage for the

workman also. The Tribunal has fixed the compensation at Rs.

3,33,485/-, however, the apportioned the compensation between

the first and second respondents and directed them to pay the said

compensation at 50% each.

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

4.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants

that admittedly, there is insurance coverage for the workmen which

is not disputed by the second respondent/Insurance Company. Such

being the position, directing the first respondent-owner of the lorry

to pay the compensation at 50% is not sustainable. Further the

learned counsel for the second respondent Insurance company has

not disputed the insurance coverage to the workman.

5.The point for consideration that arose for consideration in

this appeal is as follows:

1.Whether the Tribunal is right in apportioning the

compensation between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance

Company?

6.Admittedly, the insurance coverage to the workman is not

disputed. Though it is an act policy, it has the coverage of workman

also. From the records, it could be seen that the accident is not

disputed and the deceased died during and in the course of

employment under the first respondent's lorry, which is also

insured with the second respondent, which is not disputed by the

Insurance Company.

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

7.In such view of the matter directing the first

respondent/owner of the lorry to pay the compensation is not in

order and hence the order of the Deputy Commissioner of

Labour(Workmen Compensation),Trichy directing the the first and

second respondents to pay the compensation at 50% each alone is

set aside and the second respondent Insurance Company is

directed to pay the entire award amount with interest at the rate of

12%p.a.,from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

8.With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

is allowed. It is stated that the second respondent Insurance

Company has already deposited 50% of the award amount before

the Tribunal. In such view of the matter, the second respondent is

directed to deposit the remaining award amount within a period of

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

13.04.2023

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC:Yes/No vsn To

1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmen Compensation), Trichy.

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

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis N.SATHISH KUMAR.,J.

vsn

JUDGMENT MADE IN C.MA(MD)No.1189 of 2021

13.04.2023

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