Madras High Court
M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance ... vs Puniyamoorthi on 3 October, 2024
C.M.A.(MD)No.271 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 03.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.271 of 2020
and C.M.P(MD)No.3720 of 2020
M/s.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
A.T.P. Towers,
5th Floor, 12-A, Bye Pass Road,
Madurai ... Appellant/2nd Respondent
Vs.
1.Puniyamoorthi
2.Jeeva
3.Minor Ajithkumar ...Respondents 1 to 3/Claimants
4.K.Vinothkumar ...4th Respondent/1st Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated
19.08.2019 passed in EC.No.14 of 2014 on the file of the Commissioner
for Employees Compensation and Tribunal of the Joint Commissioner of
Labour, Thiruchirappalli.
For Appellant : Mr.M.E.Ilango
For R1 to R3 : Mr.M.Karunanithi
R4 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 7
C.M.A.(MD)No.271 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the award of compensation to the respondents 1 to 3 herein.
2. The respondents 1 to 3/claimants filed a claim petition before
the Labour Commissioner, Trichy, stating that the deceased was working
as a Cleaner in the Lorry owned by the 4th respondent herein and while he
was cleaning the Lorry, the Lorry which was parked had suddenly moved
and dashed another vehicle as a result of which, he sustained fatal
injuries.
3. The appellant filed a counter opposing the claim petition stating
that the deceased was not employed under the 4th respondent herein and
hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Before the Commissioner, the respondents 1 to 3 examined P.W.
1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The 4th respondent examined himself as a
witness and the appellant examined his Manager as a witness and marked
Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The Commissioner, on the basis of the evidence on record, held
that the deceased was employed under the 4th respondent herein and
directed the appellant as the insurer of the 4th respondent to pay the
compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the 4th
respondent himself has sent a letter, Ex.R.1, denying the employer-
employee relationship and also deposed before the Commissioner that
the deceased was not employed under him and therefore, the Tribunal
ought not to have held that the employer-employee relationship was
established by the claimants and prayed for allowing of the appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the claimants, per contra, submitted that
the claimants lodged the first information report within two hours of the
accident, in which, they had stated that the deceased was employed as a
Cleaner in the Lorry; that the 4th respondent had admitted in his cross-
examination that his father was taking care of the Lorry business and he
came to know about the accident and other facts only through his father;
and therefore, the Tribunal was right in disbelieving the evidence of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4th respondent and awarding compensation to the claimants and therefore,
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. A perusal of records reveals that the claimants had lodged a first
information report on 28.08.2013 at about 8.30 a.m and the accident took
place at 6.30 a.m on the same day. In the first information report, the
claimants had stated that the deceased was working as a Cleaner in the
Lorry, which belongs to the 4th respondent herein. The averments cannot
be stated to be an afterthought. Though the 4th respondent examined
himself as a witness and had deposed that the deceased did not work as a
Cleaner in the Lorry, the cross examination would reveal that his father
was in-charge of the Lorry business and only his father knew as to who
was employed in the Lorry and that he came to know the facts stated by
him only from his father. The 4th respondent had not chosen to examine
his father to prove that the deceased was not employed under him. In the
light of the above admission by the 4th respondent, his evidence is
hearsay and therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding of the
Tribunal holding that the claimants had established the employer-
employee relationship cannot be faulted. In any case, the grounds raised
in the appeal are factual in nature. No question of law much less a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
substantial question of law has been raised in this appeal warranting
interference in an appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923.
9. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
entire compensation amount was deposited before the Commissioner and
a portion of the amount was deposited as per the order dated 13.08.2020
in the Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The
respondents 1 to 3/claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire
compensation amount including the amount deposited to the credit of this
appeal before the Indian Bank, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court as
per the apportionment fixed by the Commissioner.
10. In fine, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.09.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
CM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Tribunal of the Joint
Commissioner of Labour, Thiruchirappalli.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
CM
Judgment made in
03.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
