United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Malar
2024 Latest Caselaw 18996 Mad

Madras High Court

United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Malar on 26 September, 2024

                                                                        C.M.A.(MD) No.1655 of 2010

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 26.09.2024

                                                        CORAM

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                           C.M.A.(MD) No.1655 of 2010
                                                     and
                                                M.P.No.2 of 2010

                    United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
                    Represented through its Branch Manager,
                    Seethalakshmi Complex, 3rd stop,
                    Thirunagar, Madurai – 6.                                   ... Appellant

                                                          Vs.

                    1.Malar,
                    2.Jeya (Minor),
                    3.Ambika (Minor),
                    (Minor R2 and R3 represented through his
                    Mother and natural guardian /first respondent)
                    4.S.Rengasamy,
                    5.K.Ammavasai.                                            ... Respondents


                    Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed Section 30 of the Workmen’s
                    Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 04.05.2005 in W.C.No.
                    10 of 2004, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dindigul.


                                   For Appellant            : Mr.J.S.Murali

                                   For Respondents          : No appearance



                    _____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                    Page No. 1 of 6
                                                                       C.M.A.(MD) No.1655 of 2010

                                                         *****

                                                    JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the finding on liability, the Insurance Company has

preferred the instant appeal.

2. The respondent filed a claim petition stating that while the

deceased was working as a Loadman under the fifth respondent, the driver

of the lorry, in which he was travelling, applied suddenbrake, as a result

of which he fell from the vehicle and sustained serious injuries.

3. The appellant filed a counter denying the averments in the claim

petition and stated that the employee-employer relationship has not been

established and hence, the appellant was not liable to pay the

compensation.

4. Before the Commissioner, the claimants examined two witnesses

and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The appellant neither examined any witnesses

nor marked any documents.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. The commissioner, after taking into consideration oral and

documentary evidence, held that the appellant was liable to pay

compensation of Rs.2,87,844/-, after finding that the deceased was an

employee under the fifth respondent herein and the accident took place

during the course of employment.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident

took place on 14.01.2003 and the deceased died on 22.09.2003 and the

nexus between the accident and the death has not been established by the

respondent.

7. On perusal of the records and the award of the Commissioner, it

is seen that the employee-employer relationship has been established by

the respondents. The finding of the Commissioner holding that the

accident took place during the course of employment is not under

challenge. The records reveal that due to the accident, the deceased

sustained serious injuries in the spinal cord, as a result of which he was

unable to move both his legs and the doctor had assessed the disability as

100% and he was taking continuous treatment till the date of his death on

22.09.2003. Based on the nature of injuries and treatment taken by the

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

deceased, the Commissioner, on facts, found that the nexus between the

accident and the death was established by the claimants. The finding of

the Commissioner, which is based on records and is not perverse, cannot

be interfered with. In any case, the Commissioner is the final fact finding

authority. The appeal does not raise any question of law, much less a

substantial question of law so as to warrant interference of the award, the

compensation awarded by the Commissioner is liable to be confirmed and

hence confirmed.

8. The respondents 1 and 4/claimants are entitled to withdraw the

aforesaid amount together with proportionate interest and costs, as per the

apportionment fixed by the Commissioner, less the amount already

withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the

Commissioner.

9. The respondents 2 and 3 were minors when the claim petition

was filed in the year 2004. They would have attained majority now.

Hence, they are directed to file appropriate application for recording

themselves as major and withdraw their shares.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

26.09.2024 Index: Yes/ No NCC: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order apd

To:

1.The Deputy Commissioner, Dindigul.

2.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

apd

26.09.2024

_____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis