The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company against a workmen's compensation award. It held that the policy excluded liability for operations of drilling rigs. Consequently, the company was exonerated from liability.
The appeal is allowed; the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside; the company is exonerated from liability.
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.
C.M.A.No.2902 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.09.2022
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.M.A.No.2902 of 2012
M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 3, Giriram Buildings, Main Road, Gobichettipalayam.
.. Appellant
-Vs.-
1.Ayyammal
2.Minor Rajeswari
3.Minor Sathiyapriya Minors represented by their mother Ayyammal 4.Muthugounder@Muthusamy Gounder 5.Pattakkal
6.K.Jothimani .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's compensation Act against the Award and decree dated 12.04.2012 made in W.C.No.502 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Tribunal, DCL, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arun Kumar For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Sivakumar 1 to 5 For Respondents 2 and 3 : Minors Rep by R1 For Respondent-4 : Died For Respondent-6 : Served-No Appearance
1/8
C.M.A.No.2902 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company is the appellant herein aggrieved by the Award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem in W.C.No.502 of 2005 directing the Insurance Company to compensate the claimants, despite the fact that the policy taken by the sixth respondent herein-owner did not cover for employee except the driver and the cleaner.
The respondents 1 to 5, who are the legal representatives of one Somasundaram who died in a road accident, which had occurred in the course of his employment. It is their case that the said Somasundaram was employed under the sixth respondent and on 23.01.2005 at about 7.00 hours, he was engaged in drilling bore well in the field of Pootharam Sikvi of Magawale of Serthar Pollayi fiels, Sarapkanj Police Station, Sirohi District, Rajasthan. Besides the said Somasundaram, four others were working in the rig unit unexpectedly a rock from the well being dug had fallen into the unit, as a result of which, both legs of the said Somasundaram
2/8
C.M.A.No.2902 of 2012
was cut and he had sustained fatal injuries all over his body. Though he was admitted in a hospital in Rajathan immediately, ultimately he succumbed to his injuries on 29.01.2005. The legal heirs of the said Somasundaram had therefore filed workmen's claim before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.
3/8
C.M.A.No.2902 of 2012
in respect of the mobile drilling rig and the deceased was an employee of the sixth respondent, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company was liable, particularly, since there was no specific exclusion available under IMT 47. The Tribunal had relied upon the judgement reported in 2011 (1) TNMAC 614 [ National Insurance Company Limited, Gobichettipalayam Vs. Palani Ammal and 5 others] . Challenging the said order, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal.
materials available on record.
case where there was no specific exclusion under IMT 47 provided in the insurance policy, Therefore, the Insurance Company was held liable. However, in the instance case, a perusal of the Insurance Company Policy, which has been marked as Ex.R1 contains the exclusion clause IMT 47. The policy in question clearly contains the following endorsement:
4/8
C.M.A.No.2902 of 2012
“Subject to IMT endorsement printed herein / attached hereto
21,47,52, 24, 37”
IMT endorsement 47 is what is relevant in the instant case. Earlier, the said
endorsement was in IMT endorsement 37. The said endorsement would
read as follows:-
Condition No. 37:
Mobile Cranes/Drilling Rigs.
It is hereby declared and agreed notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this policy that in respect of the Motor Vehicle the Company shall be under no liability.
a) Under Section I of this Policy in respect of loss or damage resulting from overturning arising out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle or of plant forming part of such vehicle or attached thereto except or loss or damage arising directly from fire, explosion, self ignition or lightning or burglary, housebreaking or theft.
b) Under Section II except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in respect of liability incurred by the Insured arising out of the operation as a tool of such vehicle or of plant forming part of such vehicle or attached thereto.
clearly show that it is the old IMT No.37, that is now incorporated into as IMT No.47.
5/8
C.M.A.No.2902 of 2012
29.09.2022
srn To
6/8
C.M.A.No.2902 of 2012
7/8
C.M.A.No.2902 of 2012
P.T.ASHA, J.,
srn
C.M.A.No.2902 of 2012
29.09.2022
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the insurance company is liable to compensate the legal heirs of the deceased when the accident occurred due to the operation of a drilling rig not as a motor vehicle.
Whether the exclusion clause IMT 47 in the insurance policy covers liability for loss or damage arising from the operation of a drilling rig.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Insurance Company Limited, Gobichettipalayam Vs. Palani AmmalDistinguished¶5
2011 (1) TNMAC 614 [ National Insurance Company Limited, Gobichettipalayam Vs. Palani Ammal and 5 others]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mid India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ayyammal
Rajeswari
Sathiyapriya
Muthugounder
K.Jothimani
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
