Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Kavitha ... 1St on 28 January, 2025
C.M.A.(MD) No.898 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.M.A.(MD)No.898 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.9617 of 2024
The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
D.No.43 & 45, Thiru V.Ka Road,
Thiruvalluvar ground floor, South side,
Karur – 639 001. ... Appellant/2nd respondent
vs.
1.Kavitha ... 1st Respondents/claimant
2.Suresh
3.Executive Officer
Pallapatti Town Panchayat
Aravakkuruchi Taluk
Karur.
4.Jegadeshan ... Respondents 2 to 4/respondents 1, 3 & 4
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of
the Employees Compensation Act, against judgment and decree
dated 19.10.2023 passed in E.C.No.37 of 2022 on the file of the
Employee’s Compensation Commissioner Tribunal, Dindigul.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No. 1 of 11
C.M.A.(MD) No.898 of 2024
For appellant : Mr.I.Suthakaran
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Pugalendhi
For R3 : Mr.B.Saravanan
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 & R4 : No appearance
*****
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the
Insurance Company against the Award dated 19.10.2023 passed in
E.C.No.37 of 2022 by the Employees Compensation
Commissioner, Dindigul.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the
learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third
respondent.
3. At trial, to substantiate the claim, on the claimant side, the
claimant has been examined as P.W.1 and six documents were
marked. On the first respondent side, one witness (Suresh son of
Nagamuthu) was examined and no document was marked. On the
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
second respondent/Insurance Company side, two witnesses (Raj
and V.S.Sekar) were examined and three documents were marked.
Ex.R3 is the copy of policy of insurance.
4. Upon consideration, the learned Workmen Compensation
Authority has held that on the date of accident, the policy was in
force and the deceased was working under the first respondent as
cleaner and therefore, the second respondent, who is the insurer of
the first respondent, was made liable to pay compensation.
5. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Golla Rajanna vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Company Limited reported in 2017 ACJ 1 (SC) and North East
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha reported in
2019 ACJ 29 (SC), the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court is
confined to the substantial question of law and it cannot re-
appreciate the evidence and under the scheme of the Act, the
Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Hence, this Court is of
the considered view that the Commissioner has given its finding
based on a sound appreciation of evidence.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 is
extracted hereunder, for easy understanding:
30. Appeals:
1. An appeal shall lie to the High Court from
the following orders of a Commissioner,
namely:
(a) an order awarding as compensation a
lump sum whether by way of redemption of
a half-monthly payment or otherwise or
disallowing a claim in full or in part for a
lump sum;
(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty
under section 4-A;
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of
a half-monthly payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of
compensation among the dependants of a
deceased workman, or disallowing any claim
of a person alleging himself to be such
dependant;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any
claim for the amount of an indemnity under
the provisions of sub-section (2) of section
12; or
(e) an order refusing to register a
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
memorandum of agreement or registering
the same or providing for the registration of
the same subject to conditions:
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any
order unless a substantial question of law is
involved in the appeal, and it the case of an
order other than an order such as is referred to
in clause (b) unless the amount in dispute in
the appeal is not less than three hundred
rupees:’
...
(11) Under the scheme of the Act, the
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is
the last authority on facts. Parliament has
thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal
only to substantial questions of law, being a
welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High
Court has missed this crucial question of
limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-
appreciate the evidence and recorded ints own
findings on percentage of disability for which
als othere is no basis. Thewhole exercise
made by the High Court is not within the
competence of the High Court under Section
30 of the Act.”
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. It is also relevant to refer to the observations made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North East Karnataka
Road Transport Corporation (cited supra) as follows:
“9. At the outset, we may take note of
the fact, being a settled principle, that the
question as to whether the employee met with
an accident, whether the accident occurred during
the course of employment, whether it arose out
of an employment, how and in what manner the
accident occurred, who was negligent in causing
the accident, whether there existed any relationship of
employee and employer, what was the age
and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the
dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of
disability caused to the employee due to
injuries suffered in an accident, whether there
was any insurance coverage obtained by the
employer to cover the incident etc. are some
of the material issues which arise for the just
decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition
when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies
during the course of his employment and he/his LRs
sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the
Act.
10. The aforementioned questions are
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
essentially the questions of fact and, therefore,
they are required to be proved with the aid of
evidence. Once they are proved either way, the
findings recorded thereon are regarded as the
findings of fact.
11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of
the Act to the High Court against the order
of the Commissioner lie only against the specific
orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the
Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the
Section that the appeal must involve substantial
question of law.
12. In other words, the appeal provided
under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against
the order of the Commissioner is not like a Regular
First Appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on
facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the
High Court to decide the appeal is confined
only to examine the substantial questions of law
arising in the case.”
8. Hence, the following substantial question of law arises for
consideration:
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“Whether the employee compensation
commissioner directed the insurance company to pay
compensation for an employee under liability only
policy when there is no premium paid for employee?”
9. From the records, it transpires that the deceased was
employed in connection with laying of pipeline with the help of JCB
and he was working as a cleaner at the relevant point of time.
Ex.R1 is the copy of a liability only policy.
10. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Workmen
Compensation Authority which is extracted hereunder:
“,tw;wpypUe;nj gzpahsu; ,Hg;gPl;Lr;rl;lk; gpupt[ 12(2)d;go
K:d;whk; vjpu;kDjhunu Kjd;ik ntiyaspg;gtu; vd;gJ
bjupatUfpwJ/ vdnt. tpgj;J rkaj;jpy; K:dw; hk;
vjpu;kDjhuUf;Fk; ,we;Jnghd m$pj;Fkhu;
vd;gtUf;Fk; ntiyahs; ? ntiyaspg;gtu;
cwt[Kiw ,Ue;jpUe;jhYk;. ,we;Jnghd m$pj;Fkhu; vd;gtu; fle;j
19/10//2021?k; njjpad;W Kjd;ik ntiyaspgg; tuhd 3tJ
vjpu;kDjhuupd;. fhd;luhf;luhd 4tJ vjpuk; Djhuu;. FoePu;
igg;iyd; gjpf;Fk; gzpf;fhf FHp njhz;Lk; gzpia 1tJ
vjpu;kDjhuUf;Fr; brhe;jkhd TN-69-AZ-1321 vd;w JCB tz;o
K:yk; bra;J bfhz;oUe;jbghGJ. mt;thfdj;jpy; fpsPduhfg;
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
gzpg[upe;j m$pj;Fkhu; vd;gtu; fle;j 19/10/2021k; njjpad;W Vw;gl;l
gzpapil tpgj;jpy; kpdr; huk; jhf;fp ,we;Js;shu; vdj;
jPuk; hdpf;fpnwd;/”
11. The Commissioner has discussed in detail and concluded
that the deceased is a worker under the first respondent. He was
engaged in drinking water pipeline laying work through JCB bearing
registration No.TN-69-AZ-1321. No doubt, he was engaged as a
cleaner in the said work. During the course of work only, the
accident happened.
12.In the given circumstances, he can very well be brought
under the category of third party. The Premium for the third party, a
sum of Rs.6,847/- is paid. In such view of the matter, the liability
saddled on the insurance company cannot legally be found fault
with.
13. In the light of the aforestated discussions and
observations, the substantial question of law is answered against
the appellant herein.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands
dismissed confirming the order of the learned Workmen
Compensation Commissioner. No costs. Connected, Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
15. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company, after adjusting the
amount already withdrawn if any, by filing necessary application
before the Commissioner.
28.01.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
apd
To
1.The Employee’s Compensation Commissioner,
The Employee’s Compensation Commissioner Tribunal,
Dindigul.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.KALAIMATHI,J
apd
Pre-delivery order made in
28.01.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
