Allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Ramkumar

Madras HC15 Apr 2024CMA/2910/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the insurance company's appeal against an award under the Employees Compensation Act. Relying on the claimant's statement to police that he was employed by a poultry farm and not the vehicle owner, the Court held the insurer was not liable to pay compensation.

What did the court decide?

Award of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation set aside. Insurer permitted to withdraw deposited amount.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Ramkumar — Insurance | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A.No.2910 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

C.M.A.No.2910 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P No.16686 of 2021

¶9

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Auto Tie-Up, East Coast Chambers No.92, G.N. Chetty Road, Parthasarathipuram, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017.

¶10

... Appellant

¶11

..Vs..

¶12

1.Ramkumar 2.E.Periyannan ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 Employees Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 25.01.2021 made in W.C.C. No.E.C.427 of 2017, on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor, at Namakkal Camp).

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

1/8

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

C.M.A.No.2910 of 2021

¶19

This appeal filed by the Insurance Company was admitted by this

¶20

Court on 07.10.2021, on the following substantial questions of law:

¶21

1. Whether the first respondent was an employee of the second respondent overlooking Ex.P1?

¶22

2. Whether liability can be fastened on the Insurance company for a gratuitous passenger who was not an employee of the insured?

¶23

3.Whether oral evidence can be accepted in preference to the documentary evidence which is immediately after the accident?

¶24

4.Whether a person employed in a poultry farm has to be covered by the insurance policy issued to a motor vehicle?

¶25

The Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal primarily

¶26

on the ground that the first respondent/claimant was not an employee of the owner of the vehicle insured with the appellant and therefore, under the Employees Compensation Act 1923, he cannot claim compensation.

¶27

Though the respondents have been duly served, no one has entered

¶28

2/8

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

C.M.A.No.2910 of 2021

¶31

appearance on their behalf and their names have also been printed in the cause list today.

¶32

As seen from the award passed by the Commissioner for

¶33

Workmen's Compensation only based on the counter statement of the second respondent that the first respondent is his employee, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has passed an award against the appellant Insurance Company for the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant caused by a vehicle owned by the second respondent. However, as seen from the evidence available on record, namely the first respondent/claimant's own statement before the police immediately after the happening of the accident (Ex.P1), the first respondent/claimant has himself made a statement that he is a load man / employee of Bharathi Poultry Farm. The owner of the vehicle insured with the appellant is the second respondent. In the impugned order, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has also extracted the statement of the first respondent/claimant when he has categorically stated that he is a load man /employee of Bharathi Poultry Farm and not of the second respondent who

¶34

3/8

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

C.M.A.No.2910 of 2021

¶37

is having insurance coverage with the appellant Insurance Company. The statement made by the first respondent/claimant before the police which has been extracted in the impugned order is once again reproduced for easy reference:

¶38

ghyrKj;jpuk;. bjhl;oak; (TK) jpUr;rp (Dt).

¶39

ehd; bjhl;oak;. ghyrKj;jpuk; MGR efhpy; vd; bgw;nwhh;fSld; FoapUe;J bfhz;L Rkhh; 3 tUl fhykhf ghg;gpehaf;fd;gl;o ghujp nfhHpg;gz;izapy; nyhLnkdhft[k;. yhhp fpsPduhft[k; ntiy ghh;j;J tUfpnwd;/ 19/03/2017e; njjp ,ut[ 09/30 kzp RkhUf;F v';f nfhHpg; gz;izapy; kpdp yhhp

¶40

TN 28 BB 3470 vd;w kpdp yhhpapy; ehDk; bre;jpy;Fkhh;. mUs;Fkhh; Mfpa K:d;W ngUk; Kl;ilnyhL Vw;wpf;bfhz;L ,Ue;njhk;/ mg;nghJ gz;iz Xdh; fz;kzp vd;gtUk; cld; ,Ue;jhh;/ ehd; tz;o kPJ Kl;il nyhL Vw;Wk;nghJ gpd;dhy; epd;w nghJ epiyjLkhwp tz;oapy; ,Ue;J fPnH jLkhwp tpGe;J tyJ ifia g{kpapy; Cd;wpanghJ tyJ ifapy; gyj;j mogl;Ltpl;lJ. clnd vd;Dld; ,Ue;jth;fs; vd;id J}f;fptpl;L gz;iz Xdh; fz;kzp vd;gth; vd;id ehkf;fy; ghujp kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;irf;F ml;kpl; bra;jhh;/ ehd; rpfpr;irapy; ,Ue;jnghJ ey;ypghisak; nghyP!hh; te;J tprhhpj;J thf;FK:yk; bgw;W goj;J fhl;l ehd; brhd;d go rhpahf cs;sJ".

¶41

However, erroneously based on the counter statement filed by the

¶42

second respondent that the first respondent is his employee, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has held that the first

¶43

4/8

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.M.A.No.2910 of 2021

¶46

respondent/claimant is an employee of the second respondent and has given a finding that the appellant Insurance Company which has insured the second respondent's vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the first respondent/claimant, as a result of the injuries sustained by him while he was loading goods in the vehicle owned by the second respondent and insured with the appellant.

¶47

As per Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act 1923, the employer is liable to pay compensation to his employee, if the employee had sustained any injuries during the course of his employment. In the instant case, as seen from the evidence available on record, the second respondent is not the employer for the first respondent/claimant. The first respondent/claimant has himself admitted in his own statement before the Police, which has not been rebutted by any contra evidence, that he is an employee of M/s.Bharathi Poultry Farm, who is not the second respondent. However, the Commissioner, erroneously without any basis, by relying upon the counter statement filed by the second respondent, wherein it is stated that the first respondent/claimant is his employee, has held that the second

¶48

5/8

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

C.M.A.No.2910 of 2021

¶51

respondent is the employee for the first respondent/claimant. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, erroneously by non application of mind to the evidence available on record, has given a finding that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation despite the fact that the insured namely, the second respondent is not an employer of the first respondent/claimant. In view of the erroneous finding rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation which is not based on any evidence necessarily, the order of the Commissioner has to be set aside by this Court and the appeal will have to be allowed and the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court at the time of admission of this appeal has to be answered in favour of the appellant.

¶52

In the result, the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court which have been extracted supra, are answered in favour of the appellant and the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Coonoor (Camp Court at Namakkal), dated 25.01.2021 passed in W.C.C No.E.C.427 of 2017 is hereby set aside. The Appellant Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount

¶53

6/8

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

C.M.A.No.2910 of 2021

¶56

deposited before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation by filing

¶57

an appropriate application.

¶58

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.

¶59

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶60

15.04.2024

¶61

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order uma

¶62

¶63

1.The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor (Camp Court at Namakkal)

¶64

2.The Section Officer V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.

¶65

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶66

7/8

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

C.M.A.No.2910 of 2021

¶69

uma

¶70

C.M.A.No.2910 of 2021 and C.M.P No.16686 of 2021

¶71

15.04.2024

¶72

8/8

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Ramkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Ramkumar

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

K.U.Rangaraj Vs Rukkummal @ Palaniammal(died)

G.Latha Vs Amudha

The Deputy Director Vs Hotel Bombay Diamond

M/S.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajendran

S.Mohammed Tajudeen Vs Liyakath Ali

R.Sujana Shanmuganathan Vs J. Prabakaran