Madras High Court
Ramya vs Thangavel on 24 November, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
CMA.No.1562 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2023
CORAM: JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
CMA.No.1562 of 2022
Ramya ... Appellant
-Vs-
1.Thangavel
2.Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Limited,
No.45, 46 Whites Road,
Sundaram Tower, Rayapet,
Chennai – 14. ...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Employee's Compensation Act,1923, against the order dated 20.09.2019
made in W.C.No.353 of 2015 (Old.No.160 of 2015) on the file of the
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner
of Labour, Vellore.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Sivakumar
For R1 : Mr.C.Munusamy
For R2 : Ms.C.Harini
for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Assts.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA.No.1562 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The widow of an employee named Subramani, who was a 39 year old
driver, has approached this Court, challenging the dismissal of a claim
petition that she has preferred before the Deputy Commissioner of
Labour, Vellore for the death of her husband, while in the course of
employment.
2.It is an admitted fact that Subramani was working as a driver under the
first respondent and at the relevant time as the driver of the lorry bearing
Regn.No.TN 34 S 7657. About the time when Subramani died, he was
proceeding from Hyderabad to Salem with a load of paddy and that he
was continuously driving long trips and when he was resting after
parking the vehicle on the road side, he passed away.
3.The first respondent employer did not contest the claim petition,
whereas the insurance company contested it and its solitary line of
defense was that the death has not occasioned in the course of
employment, since the victim was sleeping at the relevant time and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
placed reliance on the ratio in Smt.Dariyao Kanwar & ors. Vs.
M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and anr [Civil Appeal
No(S).5416 of 2012]
4.The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that it is not
in dispute that the employee now in question was driving for long hours
and that the nature of his avocation itself can create huge strain and stress
on the physique. He added that the Commissioner has been too
mechanical in his approach to the issue and sought interference of this
Court.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent, whose argument was
along the lines of defense of the second respondent/insurance company.
6.It may be true that the employee in question might have died in sleep
but, it should not be lost sight of that he died in the very lorry that he was
driving. As long as the lorry is given in custody to him for driving, it has
to be considered that he is in the course of employment and if stress as an
occupational hazard consumes his life, the same cannot be separated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
either from the nature of employment and the very factum of being
employed.
7.This Court finds every reason to interfere with the decision of the
Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act and holds that
the death has occasioned in the course of employment. Turning to the
compensation payable, it will be as below;
Income Rs..8.000/- pm
Age factor 186.9(39 years)
Loss of Income Rs.8,000 x 50% x 186.9 =
Rs.7,47,600/-
Funeral Expenses Rs.5,000/-
Total Rs.7,52,600/-
8.In conclusion, this appeal is allowed and the second respondent
insurance company is required to deposit Rs.7,52,600/- with interest at
12% per annum within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order and both the second respondent as well as the
Deputy Commissioner of Laboure, Vellore are required to act on the web
copy of this order. No costs.
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tsg
To
1.The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Vellore.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE, J.,
Tsg
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
