This appeal challenges a workmen's compensation award. The court held that the claimant was the driver and the insurer the employer, confirming the lower tribunal's award and directing the insurer to deposit the amount.
Appeal dismissed; award confirmed; appellant directed to deposit award amount with accrued interests and costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 21.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, No.4, Bharthidasan Road, Cantonment, Trichirappalli – 620 001. .. Appellant /2nd Respondent
1.Tmt.Shanthi .. 1st Respondent/ Petitioner 2.Thiru.Sivapathasekaram .. 2nd Respondent/ 1st Respondent
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award made in W.C.No.144 of 2012, dated 01.04.2014, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirappalli.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award, dated 01.04.2014 in W.C No.144 of 2012 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirappalli.
2.The first respondent filed W.C.No.144 of 2014 before the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichirappalli, claiming a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred during the course of his employment under the second respondent.
2
3.In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there is no relationship of employer and employee amongst the first respondent and petitioner. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
9.Considering the fact that the first respondent is the owner of the said vehicle and also considering that in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition it has been clearly stated that on the date of accident the petitioner has driven the same as its driver, it is very clear that the petitioner has clearly established the alleged
3
relationship of employer and employee amongst the first respondent and petitioner. Therefore the attack made on the side of the appellant/second respondent goes out without merit. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(T&P)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichirappalli.
2.The Record Keeper, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+One cc to Mr.K.Bhaskaran, Advocate, SR.No.66919
+One cc to Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj, Advocate, SR.No.67018
rj2 RL/5C/3P/JC/SAR1/2/8/2017
C.M.A.(MD).No.443 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
21.07.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there was an employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the insurance company at the time of the accident.
Whether the award made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation should be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Sivapathasekaram
Shanthi
Nisha Banu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
