Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Rajeswari on 8 March, 2023
C.M.A.(MD).No.272 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.272 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD) No.3135 of 2017
The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
67A, Periyakulam Road,
Theni District – 625 531. ..... Appellant/ Respondent-2
-vs-
1. Rajeswari
W/o. Late Murugesan
2. Minor Karthick
S/o. Late Murugesan
3. Minor Geetha
D/o. Late Murugesan
4. Kamatchi
W/o. Late Thangavelu
(2nd and 3rd Respondents represented by mother
and natural guardian of the 1st respondent)
..... Respondents 1 to 4/ Petitioners
5. D.Sekar ....5th Respondent/ 1st Respondent
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.272 of 2017
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen
Compensation Act, against the Award dated 28.10.2016 made in W.C.No.28
of 2013, on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.M.S.Sureshkumar
For Respondents : Mr.T.Vadivelan
for R1 to R4
: Mr.P.Muthuvijaya Pandian
for R5
JUDGMENT
The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance
Company, challenging the Award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen
Compensation, Dindigul.
2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are the legal heirs of one Murugesan,
who was working as a Lorry driver and who had passed away on 30.07.2012
while he was on his duty.
3. The legal heirs of the said Murugesan had filed W.C.No.28 of 2013,
before the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Dindigul,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.272 of 2017
seeking compensation of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only).
According to the claimants, the deceased Murugesan was working as a driver
in the lorry belonging to the fifth respondent, and on 30.07.2012, he was
helping the load man to unload the Goods in the Koyambedu bus stand at
around 12.00 midnight. At that point of time, he developed chest pain and he
was admitted to the nearby hospital where he succumbed to heart attack. The
claimants had contended that he had received a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) as salary and he was aged about 43 years, while he
passed away.
4. The first respondent in the claim petition had filed a counter
contending by that the said deceased Murugesan, is a driver and he has
admitted nearby hospital on 30.07.2012, where he died due to heart attack.
Since he had died due to heart attack, no police complaint was lodged. He
further contended that the vehicle has been insured with the second
respondent Insurance Company and therefore only the Insurance Company is
liable to pay the compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.272 of 2017
5. The Insurance Company had filed a counter contending that the
deceased was not working as a driver and there are no records to establish
that the deceased Murugesan had died due to Heart Attack or due to stress and
strain that was caused while he was in the course of employment.
6. The Tribunal after considering the oral or documentary evidence on
either side arrived at a finding that the deceased was working as a driver in
the lorry belonging to the fifth respondent herein. The Tribunal has also
arrived at a finding that the deceased died due to stress and strain and during
the course of employment. Thereafter, the tribunal has proceeded to pass an
award of a sum of Rs.6,00,432/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Four hundred and Thirty
Two only) as compensation. This Award is under challenge in the present
appeal.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that
the learned Commissioner has not given any specific finding that the
deceased had died due to stress and strain arising out of and during the course
of employment. He further contended that there is no pleading on the side of
the claimants that the deceased had died due to stress and strain arising out of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.272 of 2017
the employment. When the death of the deceased is not relatable to the
employment, the owner of the vehicle or Insurance Company cannot be made
liable to pay the compensation. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted
that the lorry was loaded and the deceased had driven the lorry from
Vathalagundu to Koyembedu. The vehicle reached Koyembadu, at about
12.00 midnight and during his working hours the deceased was helping the
load man to unload the goods from the lorry. Therefore, only during the
course of the employment, the deceased had died due to stress and strain
caused by the long hours of driving of the vehicle. He further pointed out that
the learned Commissioner has clearly referred to the fact that the deceased
had died due to stress and strain arising out of the employment.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side.
10. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a driver in the lorry, which
was owned by the fifth respondent herein. It is also not in dispute that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.272 of 2017
driver had driven the vehicle from Vathalagundu to Chennai and vehicle
reached Koyembedu at around 12.00 midnight on 30.07.2012. It is also not in
dispute that the deceased driver was helping the load man in unloading the
banana leaves so that he can take the vehicle. Therefore, it is clear only at that
point of time, deceased had developed chest pain and he was admitted to a
nearby hospital where he succumbed to heart attack.
11. The narration of the above said facts clearly indicate that in the
course of employment, the deceased had died due to heart attack arising out
of stress and strain while driving the vehicle from Vathalagundu to Chennai.
12. The learned Commissioner has also given a specific finding in Page
No. 6 of the order that the deceased had died due to heart attack that arose out
of stress and strain arising out of the employment. Therefore, it is clear that
the learned Commissioner has given a specific finding with regard to the
cause of death of the deceased person and that there is no dispute that the
deceased is a workman under the fifth respondent herein. I do not find
any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned
Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.272 of 2017
substantial questions of law raised by the Insurance Company are answered
against the appellant.
13. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
08.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ebsi
To
1. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner,
Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD).No.272 of 2017
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ebsi
C.M.A.(MD)No.272 of 2017
08.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
