Claimants appealed dismissal of their compensation claim for a lorry driver who died after a 2004 accident. The High Court found employment with the owner unproved and unexplained delay of over ten years in filing the claim, and confirmed the Commissioner's award dismissing the petition.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.M.A.No.1742 of 2021
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2000 made in EC.No.110 of 2016 on the file of the Joint Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja For Respondents : Mr.J.Micheal Visuvasam R2 R1- Unclaimed – No such person
J U D G M E N T
This appellants/claimants have come forward with this appeal seeking
the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2000 made in EC.No.110 of 2016 on
2
the file of the Joint Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai by allowing the appeal.
2.Brief fact which are necessary for disposal of this appeal is as
follows:-
On 14.05.2004 at about 21.00 hours the deceased Arasumani was
driving the lorry bearing No.TN 04 H 8862 which was owned by the first respondent insured with the second respondent, near Irungattukottai, he fell down left side of the road, for which, he sustained injuries and admitted in Government Hospital. Thereafter, he was taken treatment in private hospital from 15.05.2004 to 28.06.2004 and consequently, he died on 28.06.2004. Thereby, the appellants/claimants have filed a claim Petition before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Court, Chennai claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the owner of the vehicle and its insurer and the same was taken on file in E.C.No.110 of 2016.
3
respondents, no witnesses was examined and no document is marked. The Joint Commissioner, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the petition as the claimants have not proved the employment with the first respondent. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have has filed this appeal before this Court.
4
alleged occurrence. The appellants have not proved the employer employee relationship and also they have not established that the deceased died during the course of employment. If the said facts are established, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. In the present case, in order to prove the employment of the deceased, no documents were marked employment of the deceased with the first respondent. After considering all the facts, the Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition, which needs no interference.
advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5
award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs.
11.12.2024
rli
6
M.DHANDAPANI,J.
Rli
To Joint Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai.
C.M.A.No.1742 of 2021
11.12.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the claimants proved the deceased's employment with the first respondent and death in the course of employment so as to sustain a workmen compensation claim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Murali
Revathy
Nagarathinam
Krishnaveni
R.Arasu Mani
National Insurance Company Ltd.
M.Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
