Dismissed

M/S United India Insurance Co. v. Mrs Malar Selvi

Madras HC13 Jan 2020CMA/3341/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an order awarding compensation to the family of a deceased plantation worker who died of a heart attack after returning from work. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the death occurred in the course of employment due to stress.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed; no order as to costs; expected payment to be disbursed within 90 days of service.

M/S United India Insurance Co. Vs Mrs Malar Selvi — Madras HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.01.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Sreeji Complex, Coonoor Nilagiri District - 643 101 ... Appellant vs. 1.Mrs.Malar Selvi 2.Sathish

¶6

3.Arul Pandian

¶7

4.M/s.United Nilagiri Tea Estates Co. Ltd., Samraj Estate & Post Nilagiri District - 643 204 ...Respondents

¶8

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 5.8.2010 made in W.C. No.37/2005 on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor.

¶9

For Appellant : Ms.Harini for M.B.Gopalan

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.N.Sirajuddin for R1 to R3 Mr.C.A.Diwakar for R4

¶11

The insurance company has come forward with the present civil miscellaneous appeal, challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor dated 5.8.2010 made in W.C. No.37/2005 awarding compensation on the ground that the death had occurred out of and in the course of employment.

¶12

According to the insurance company, the deceased was employed in a plantation and after his work, he returned to home, where he suffered heart attack and there was no connection to the employment and the death.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

The authority has taken note of the evidence of the parties and taken note of the fact that the deceased went for employment on 19.04.2005 as per the version of the wife of the deceased and that he died around 10 a.m. The relevant portion of the evidence is extracted hereunder:

¶16

"k/rh/M?1 Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapy;. //////////////19/4/2005 md;W fhiy Rkhh;

¶17

7/30 kzpf;F vd; fzth; ntiyf;F nghdhh;. vd; fzth; ntiyf;F ngha;tpl;L be";R typg;gjhf tPl;ow;F te;J vd; bfhSe;jdhh; K:h;j;jpaplk; jz;zPh; nfl;Ls;shh;/ jz;zPh; Foj;Jtpl;L gpd;g[ fl;oypy; kaf;fkhf tpGe;Jtpl;ljhy; //////////////////v!;nll; M!;gj;jphpf;F bfhz;Lnghf Vw;ghL bra;J bfhz;oUe;jhh;fs;. rk;gtk; elf;Fk;nghJ. fhiy Rkhh; 10/00 kzp ,Uf;Fk;. vd; fztiu M!;gj;jphpf;F bfhz;Lngha; ghh;j;jbghGJ ,we;Jtpl;ljhf brhd;dhh;fs;/////////// vd;Wk; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/ "

¶18

The authority came to the conclusion that the incident has taken place out of and in the course of employment and that out of stress, the deceased suffered heart attack and died and that the Workmen's Compensation policy was taken under the appellant, which was in vogue on the date of death.

¶19

The contention of the respondent that except the death certificate, FIR and Legal-heir certificate, no other document has been produced, cannot be a ground to deprive the benefits granted to the deceased family. It is based on the evidence, more particularly, substantial evidence, the authority has come to the conclusion that the deceased suffered heart attack during the course and out of employment. I find no error in the order passed by the authority and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶20

Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. After conducting dependents enquiry, the authority is expected to disburse the amount to the family members of the deceased, within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII)

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

Asr To

¶25

Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.M.B.Gopalan, Advocate SR.3997 +1cc to Mr.C.A.Diwakar, Advocate Sr.3095

¶27

C.M.A. No.3341 of 2010

¶28

BS(CO) CB(21/02/2020)

¶29

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

¶30

M/S United India Insurance Co. v. Mrs Malar Selvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S United India Insurance Co. v. Mrs Malar Selvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Arumugham Vs Pechammal

Revathi Vs Srinath

M.Aruna Vs J.Muthu Vignesh

M.Askar Ali Vs N.Manohar

T.Poongili Vs R.Jayachandran

Kaismin Bini @ Kaismin Nisha Vs M/S.T.P.S.Builders