Madras High Court
The Manager vs Velliyammal on 1 February, 2024
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: S.Srimathy
C.M.A(MD)No.33 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.02.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
C.M.A(MD)No.33 of 2022
The Manager,
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Company Limited,
Rushmi Towers, IT Floor,
No.1, Village Road, Nungampakkam,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Velliyammal
2.Minor Lathika
3.Minor Hemanath
4.Rasu
(2nd & 3rd minor respondents are
represented by their Mother and
Guardian 1st Respondent herein).
5.S.Manikandan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of Employees
Compensation Act, 1923, against the fair order, dated 20.03.2019, made in
W.C.No.25 of 2017, on the file of the Commissioner for Employees
Compensation, Dindigul.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
C.M.A(MD)No.33 of 2022
For Appellant : M/s.K.R.Shivashankari
For R1 to R4 : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj
R2 and R3 minors : Represented by R1
For R5 : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
*****
JUDGEMENT
The Insurance Company has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. It is
a case under Workman Compensation Act.
2.The contention of the Insurance Company is that the 5th respondent herein
is the owner of the vehicle who has submitted a letter stating that the deceased
was not employed by him and the alleged vehicle was not involved in any
accident. But the contention of the claimants is that the 5th respondent is the
employer. It is seen that the petitioner has also not stated for whom the deceased
had carried the vegetables. If this is stated the issue could be decided. The
Tribunal has erred in coming to the conclusion by relying on the letter submitted
by the 5th respondent, since the veracity of the letter ought to be marked through
the 5th respondent but the 5th respondent had remained ex-parte after submitting
the alleged letter.
3. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case ought to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
be remitted back for reconsideration. However, the claimants cannot suffer, hence
the claimants are allowed to withdraw 1/3rd of the award amount. For the balance
amount, the Commissioner shall allow the parties to contest as per law. The
Commissioner is directed to complete the proceedings within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
4. The Insurance Company has already deposited the entire amount (Rs.
8,36,920/-) along with 12% interest and costs, hence, the claimants are entitled to
withdraw 1/3rd of the award amount (i.e., Rs.2,78,974/-) with 12% interest and
costs. All the claimants are entitled to equal share in the above said Rs.2,78,974/-
with proportionate accrued interest and costs. The Commissioner of Employees
Compensation, Dindigul, is directed to deposit the shares of the minor children in
the name of the minor children (equal share) in a Nationalized Bank until the
children attain majority or until the order is passed by the Tribunal in this case
which is remitted back to the Tribunal. The first respondent herein, who is the
mother/guardian, is permitted to withdraw the interest amount once in three
months. The Insurance Company shall pay the above said 1/3 rd of the award
amount with 12% interest and costs and recover 50% of the same from the 5th
respondent, since 50% liability is fixed on the 5th respondent and 50% liability is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fixed on the Insurance Company.
5. With the above said observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
disposed of. No costs.
01.02.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Tmg
To
1.The Commissioner for Employees Compensation,
Dindigul.
2.The Section Officer,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
01.02.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
