Dismissed

The Divisional Manager, v. Nagoor Pitchai

Madras HC27 Jul 2017CMA(MD)/391/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An insurance company preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal challenging a workmen's compensation award on grounds of non-liability and employment status. The court found no infirmity in the lower court's finding that the claimant was a loadman held liable under the Act and dismissed the appeal. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

No costs. The connected C.M.P. and M.P. No. 2 of 2014 are closed.

The Divisional Manager, Vs Nagoor Pitchai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.07.2017

¶3

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU C.M.A(MD)No.391 of 2014 and C.M.P.(MD)No.432 of 2017 and M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2014

¶4

The Divisional Manager, M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, 140, Thottabhai House, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-600 034.

¶5

... Appellant/Respondent-2

¶6

1.Nagoor Pitchai ... Respondent/Petitioner 2.Sirajudeen ... Respondent/Respondent No.1

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, against the award dated 07.08.2013 made in W.C.No.121 of 2008 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour- Camp), Dindigul, served on 19.08.2013.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan For R1 : Mr.A.Theethar

¶9

J U D G M E N T

¶10

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 07.08.2013 made in W.C.No.121 of 2008 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour- Camp), Dindigul.

¶11

2.Before the trial Court, the appellant herein is the second respondent; the first respondent herein is the petitioner and the second respondent herein is the first respondent.

¶12

3 . The case of the claimant in the petition is briefly as

¶13

follows:

¶14

3.1.The petitioner was working as a Loadman under respondent No.1, who is the owner of the Loadauto. The vehicle is insured with the second respondent/Insurance Company. On 24.04.2008 as per direction of the respondent No.1, the claimant drove the loadauto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bearing registration No.TN-55-R-4698 at Tiruchendur-Tuticorin main road. When the loadauto was nearing Ramachandrapuram, the accident

¶15

¶16

took place. In the accident the petitioner sustained severe injuries and the left thigh bone was fractured. So, he filed a claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

¶17

4.Before the Tribunal on the side of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 was marked.

¶18

5.On consideration of the evidence available on record, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,68,329/- and the same was directed to be deposited by the Insurance Company, the appellant herein, within thirty days from date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which, they should deposit the same with interest at the rate of 12%. Aggrieved over the said award, the Insurance Company is before this Court.

¶19

6.At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant would challenge the award only on the ground of liability. He further stated that the Commissioner ought to have found that even in FIR, the injured claimant stated that he was engaged in sale of Ice cream and he has never stated to be an employee of the first respondent and hence, the claim under the Workmen Compensation Act is not maintainable. He would also submit that the claimant in his cross examination has stated that the petitioner was a loadman and in the cross examination he has stated he was working as loadman. He drew the attention of this Court to the order of the lower Court, which reads as follows:-

¶20

“kDjhuh; jdJ FWf;F tprhuizapd;nghJ> ehd; I]; tpahghuk; bra;J tUtjhf Twpa[s ;nsd ; vd;why; rhp. ehd; mg;Jy ;yh> rpj;jpf;uh$h Mfpa 3 ngh; brd;nwhk ; vd;why; rhp. Jhj;Jf ;Fof;F brd;W kPd; fpilf;fhjjhy;> jpUr;bre;jhh; brd;W kPd; vLj;J tur; brd;nwhk; vd;why ; rhp.”

¶21

It is also the specific finding of the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioner was working as loadman, the appellant has not established that the claimant is not a loadman and therefore, he has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a loadman and granted an award.

¶22

7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and perused the records.

¶23

8.Keeping the submissions made by the learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant Insurance Company, I have carefully perused the materials available on record and I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner in awarding the compensation.

¶24

¶25

Also, considering the fact that entire award amount has already been deposited and the same was withdrawn by the claimant, I am of the opinion that no interference is necessary in the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

¶26

9.In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.(MD) No.432 of 2017 and M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2014 are closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶29

/Truecopy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour- Camp), Dindigul.

¶33

COPY TO The Record keeper, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶34

+1cc to M/S.S.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, Advocate SR.No.68770

¶35

+1cc to M/S.A.THEETHAR, Advocate SR.No.68447

¶36

¶37

MAS/KP/SAR2:22.08.2017:3P-5C

¶38

C.M.A(MD)No.391 of 2014 and C.M.P.(MD)No.432 of 2017 and M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2014 27.07.2017

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Divisional Manager, v. Nagoor Pitchai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager, v. Nagoor Pitchai

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

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Charles

Angammal Vs T.Ashokkumar

M.Kannan, Vs Rajaekaran

S.K.Venkatachalam Vs the Commissioner of Geology

Selvarani Vs a.P.Selvam

R.Kuzhandhaisamy, Vs v.K.Enterprises