Insurance company appealed a workmen compensation award of Rs.3,23,048 with interest granted to the widow and mother of a lorry assistant who died falling from a lorry. The court found no substantial question of law, held the postmortem evidence established accidental death, and dismissed the appeal.
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(MD)No.1033 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 07.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
C.M.A(MD)No.1033 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 & C.M.P.(MD)No.6903 of 2019
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., No.29, Paramathi Road, Namakkal. ... Appellant / Second Respondent Vs.
1.Selvi @ Keppaayee 2.Thayammal ... Respondents / Petitioners 3.K.Kandasamy ... Respondent / First Respondent
Prayer : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act against order dated 10.12.2007 made in W.C.No.241 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Trichy.
C.M.A(MD)No.1033 of 2011
For Appellant : Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan
For Respondents : no appearance
JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order passed in W.C.No.241 of 2006 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichirappalli wherein the respondents 1 & 2 herein have filed the petition for compensation for the death of one Andi and the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,23,048/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As against the order passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company / appellant has preferred this appeal.
C.M.A(MD)No.1033 of 2011
bearing Registration No.AP-10-E-663 from Bihar to Tamil Nadu near Jeya Prakash Jana, the deceased fell down from the lorry and died on the spot itself. At the time of death, the deceased was only aged about 48 years and he was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. The death was caused during the course of employment and the lorry in which the deceased was working which belongs to the first respondent and the same was insured with the second respondent. Therefore, the Insurance Company/second respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
C.M.A(MD)No.1033 of 2011
C.M.A(MD)No.1033 of 2011
respondent/1
C.M.A(MD)No.1033 of 2011
respondent/1st respondent and also the death is not caused due to the accident but he died due to the explosion of explosive substance. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, they examined P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the respondents, they examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1. P.W.1 in the evidence stated that the deceased died due to accident and also produced the postmortem certificate as Ex.P4. On perusal of Ex.P4 - Postmortem Certificate, it reveals that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage by injury to neck by hard blunt substance. Therefore, the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage by injury to neck by hard blunt substance. Nowhere, it is stated that the deceased died due to explosion of explosive substance.
died due to shock and hemorrhage by injury to neck by hard blunt substance. Per contra, R.W.1 in his evidence stated that the deceased died due to explosion of explosive substance. To substantiate his contention, there is no record produced by the appellant / 2nd respondent and mere oral evidence is not sufficient. When the postmortem certificate reveals the cause of death, the appeal has been preferred on the main ground that the
C.M.A(MD)No.1033 of 2011
deceased not died due to the accident. The Tribunal after taking into consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the deceased died due to explosion of explosive substance and not died due to the accident. Therefore, without any evidence, it is not appropriate to hold that the deceased not died due to the accident. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is in order and there is no any infirmity or perverse in the order passed by the Tribunal. On a careful perusal of the entire case records, there is no substantial question of law involved in this case and the grounds raised by the appellant are all factual aspects. Hence, this Court has no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
07.02.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes rmi
C.M.A(MD)No.1033 of 2011
P. DHANABAL, J.
rmi
To
2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Record Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.M.A(MD)No.1033 of 2011
07.02.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal raised a substantial question of law and whether the Tribunal's compensation award for the deceased worker's death was liable to be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Selvi @ Keppaayee
Thayammal
K. Kandasamy
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
