Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Varudharaj on 22 December, 2023
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.1735 of 2021
and CMP. No.9137 of 2021
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
MICRO OFFICE, NO.421, RASIPURAM MAIN ROAD,
VENNANDUR-637505.
Vs
1. VARUDHARAJ
2. PERIYASAMY
...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 30 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923, to set aside the order dated 25.01.2021
in EC. Case.No.64 of 2019 on the file of the Commissioner for Employee's
Compensation, Coonoor.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Dhakshinamoorthy
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This appellant/Insurance company has come forward with the present
appeal to set aside the order dated 25.01.2021 in EC. Case.No.64 of 2019
on the file of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Coonoor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.Brief fact which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as
follows:
The first respondent was working with the second respondents lorry
as cleaner bearing Registration No.TN 28 AV 7120 as cleaner and loadman.
On 12.04.2017 at about 12.00 P.M. When the first respondent was on duty,
the car driven by the driver of the Ford Fiesta car bearing Registration No.
PY 01 AS 9898 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed at the
backside of the lorry. Due to which, the accident had happened and the first
respondent sustained injuries. Thereafter, the first respondent has filed a
claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Workmen's
Compensation Court, Coonoor and the same was taken on file as E.C.Case
No.64 of 2019.
3. Before the Tribunal, during trial, in order to prove the case, the
claimant has examined two witnesses viz., PW1 and PW2 and marked
Exs.P1 to P11, On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined
and two documents were marked. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings,
oral and documentary evidence, allowed the petition and awarded a sum of
Rs.3,21,781/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest, aggrieved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the said award dated 25.01.2021, the appellant/insurance company has
filed the present appeal before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned
Commissioner failed to consider that neither the employee/claimant nor the
employer had produced any documentary evidence to prove that the first
respondent herein was employed with the second respondent on the alleged
date of accident. The appellant herein cannot be fastened with liability
unless the contract employment is proved by the claimant and the owner of
the vehicle. The learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner
has failed to consider the FIR which clearly shows that 4 persons travelled in
the TATA Ace and no where it is stated that the occupants of the vehicle are
employed by the owner of the TATA Ace. It is submitted that the occupants
are gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle who has for the purpose of
claiming compensation against the insurer, has come up with the false plea
alleging to be the cleaner employed in the Goods Vehicle. Without
considering these facts, the learned Commissioner has awarded the huge
compensation to the claimant without any basis, which is liable to be
quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
materials available on record. Though the name of the respondent has
printed in the cause, no one has appeared on his behalf.
6. Admittedly the first respondent was employed as a Cleaner in the
second respondent's Tata Ace vehicle, which was insured with the appellant
insurance company. The said vehicle was hit by another car and due to
which, the accident had happened and the first respondent sustained
injuries. The first respondent filed a claim petition before the Employee's
Compensation Court against the employer and the insurance company. It is
seen from the evidence of the Doctor that he assessed 30% disability for the
first respondent and the first respondent has taken treatment from
13.04.2017 to 16.04.2017 as in-patient. The disability has calculated as per
the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
The appellant has not disputed the statement given by the Doctor before the
Employees Compensation Court. Now the issue arises befoe this Court is
that as per the policy condition, only two persons are entitled to travel in the
Tata Ace vehicle. However, in the present case there are four persons
travelled in the said vehicle.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. On perusal of the records, it is seen that there are four persons
travelled in the vehicle. However, only one person sustained injuries and he
has alone filed a claim petition before the Employee's Compensation Court
and awarded compensation, which cannot be interfered with and the learned
Commissioner, Employee's Compensation Court has rightly adjudicated the
issue and passed award, which is just and reasonable.
8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the
award passed by the learned Commissioner is hereby confirmed. The
appellant insurance company is directed to deposit the entire amount
awarded by the Tribunal along with interest and costs, less the amount
already deposited if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. on such deposit, the claimant is permitted
to withdraw the award amount with interest, by filing necessary applications
before the Tribunal. No costs.
22.12.2023
rli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Rli
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
To
The Judge,
The Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Coonoor.
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
