Allowed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Vinu and Another

Kerala HC14 Oct 2020MFA (ECC)/202/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Misc. Appeal was filed by an insurance company challenging a compensation order. The court denied coverage, ruling the injured worker was not an employee of the insurance company's client under the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

Exonerating the appellant from liability and ordering the compensation be recovered from the first opposite party or returned to the appellant.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Vinu… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942

¶5

MFA.No.202 OF 2011

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WCC 467/2003 DATED 09-05-2011 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,THRISSUR

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶8

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT AND 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶11

1 VINU, S/O.VARGHESE, PUNNAPPUZHA HOUSE, ATTORE P.O., THRISSUR - 680520.

¶12

2 THE CHAIRMAN, APM TRANSPORT CO.LTD., PORANATTUKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 518.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH PODUVAL

¶14

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

MFA.No.202 OF 2011 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The appellant is the second opposite party, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in W.C.C.No.467 of 2003 before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thrissur.

¶18

By the impugned order dated 9.5.2011 the appellant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,765/- with interest as compensation for the personal injuries sustained by the first respondent, who is the applicant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Thrissur .

¶19

The challenge in this appeal is that the accident is not covered by the Workmen's Compensation Policy. A copy of policy was also made available to me for perusal. Another contention is that the injured was working under a different employer by name Shanmugham Electricals.

¶20

appellant as well as the first respondent. The

¶21

MFA.No.202 OF 2011 3

¶22

second respondent did not contest the appeal.

¶23

The contention that the accident is not

¶24

covered by the Workmen's Policy is not disputed by the learned counsel for the first respondent. On the other hand, the policy that was issued is an insurance covered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The incident in the present case occurred on 9.5.2003 at about 1 p.m while the first respondent was repairing a bus bearing Reg.No.KL-

¶25

8/M 6085 at Muthuvara. He is not an employee included within the category of persons enumerated in Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. He was not an employee engaged by the second respondent for any of the purposes mentioned in S.147(1). Therefore, accepting the contention of

¶26

the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the

¶27

opinion that the Commissioner has erred in

¶28

fastening liability on the Company.

¶29

But the argument that the first respondent

¶30

was not employed under the second opposite party

¶31

MFA.No.202 OF 2011 4

¶32

cannot be accepted. The Commissioner after on appreciating the evidence on record was satisfied that the first respondent was employed by the second respondent. In view of what is held above,

¶33

I am of opinion that the liability for compensation has to be shouldered by the second respondent in this appeal.

¶34

In the result, appeal is allowed exonerating

¶35

the appellant from liability. It is hereby ordered

¶36

that the amount of compensation fixed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner shall be

¶37

recovered from the first opposite party in W.C.C.No.467 of 2003. If the amount in deposit has

¶38

not so far been disbursed, it shall be returned to the appellant.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

T.V.ANILKUMAR, JUDGE

¶41

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Vinu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Vinu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Abdul Latheef Vs T.K.Kunhabdulla Haji

Sumathy Vs Kalyani

M.K.Ramadasan Vs Krishnadas

T.T. Baiju Vs Corporation of Kochi

T.T.Baiju Vs Corporation of Kochi

K.P.Viswanathan Nair Vs K.P.Ramachandran(died)