Cross appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act arising from deaths of two lorry loadmen buried under sand at a brick kiln. The court held the employee-employer relationship was proved for one deceased but not the other, and that non-transfer of the insurance policy did not defeat coverage against the transferee owner. Both appeals were dismissed.
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) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN , J.
Today, the matter is listed under the caption “For Being Mentioned”.
2.It is now reported that the second and third claimants in W.C.No.81 of
2014 have attained majority. Hence, paragraph No.23 of the order dated 19.10.2024, shall be replaced as follows:
“23. The claimants in W.C.No.81 of 2024 are entitled to the compensation as per the apportionment fixed by the Commissioner. The claimants in W.C.No.81 of 2024 are permitted to withdraw their shares along with the proportionate interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing suitable application before the Commissioner.”
In all other respects, the order dated 19.10.2024, shall remain unaltered.
09.01.2025
rsi
1/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN , J.
rsi
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
09.01.2025
2/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 16.10.2024 Pronounced on 19.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 and
C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
C.M.A.(MD) No.481 of 2021
[Minor second to fourth appellants are represented through their mother and next friend, the first appellant]
5.Veeranathevar S/o.Muthuthevar ... Appellants
Vs.
3/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
S/o.Valivittan
3.The Branch Manager, M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., No.82, I Floor, Thirumalai Plaza, New Tharapuram Road, Palani Town, Dindigul District.
... Respondents
[R2 - Notice was dispensed with vide order of this Court dated 20.06.2024]
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to set aside the award dated 09.02.2021 made in W.C.No.81 of 2014 on the file of the Commissioner for Workman Compensation (Commissioner for Workmen), Dindigul.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Malaiyendran For R1 : No appearance For R3 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian
C.M.A.(MD) No.648 of 2021
The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., No.82, First Floor, Thirumalai Plaza, Puthu Dharapuram Road, Palani Town, Dindigul District. ... Appellant Vs.
1.Palmani W/o.Late.Senthilkumar 2.Minor.Kalai Arasu S/o.Late.Senthilkumar
4/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
3.Minor.Kamalesh
S/o.Late.Senthilkumar
[Minor second and third respondents are represented by their mother and guardian, the first respondent]
6.Ilangovan S/o.Pitchaithevar
... Respondents
[R6 remained ex parte before the lower court & R7 - Notice was dispensed with vide order of this Court dated 20.06.2024]
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Commissioner for Workmen), Dindigul in W.C.No.82 of 2014 granting compensation of Rs.8,28,205/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Five only).
For Appellant : Mr.K.Balasubramanian
For R1 to R5 : Mr.V.Malaiyendran
5/16
For R6 : No appearance
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
Both these appeals are taken up together for final disposal because they challenge the common order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Commissioner for Workmen), Dindigul, in two claim petitions.
6/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
Mr.Nagarajan, the original insured, who had sold the vehicle to Mr.Ilangovan,
in whose name the Registration Certificate was subsequently transferred. However, the name transfer in the insurance policy had not been effected.
7/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. In W.C.No.82 of 2014 [C.M.A. (MD) No.648 of 2021], the claimants examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P7 to P9. The Insurance Company examined R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked Exs.R1 to R3, in both the claim petitions.
8/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
in W.C.No.81 of 2014 filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Rajamani is in accordance with law and therefore, the said appeal has to be dismissed.
Whether there was perversity in the findings of the tribunal that there was no employer employee relationship between the first respondent and the deceased inspite of the availability of documents marked as Exs.P2, P6 and P7 and the
9/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
evidence adduced by P.W.2?
Court had framed the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation erred in fastening the liability on the appellant / insurer, when the claimants have failed to prove that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the first respondent and the deceased?
2. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation erred in mulcting liability on the appellant / insurer, without considering and deciding the material aspects as to whether there was actual use of the vehicle and there was any connection between the cause of death and the use of the vehicle?
C.M.A.(MD) No.648 of 2021
10/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
also been spoken to by P.W.1 in both W.Cs., which is corroborated by the averments in the FIR (Ex.P1) registered based on the complaint given by the Village Administrative Officer of Periyampatti Village. The appellant has not let in any contra evidence.
Subsequently, the Registration Certificate was transferred in the name of the said Mr.Ilangovan. However, the insurance has not been transferred in the name of the said Mr.Ilangovan. The law is well settled. In a decision in United India Insurance Vs. M.Periyasamy and another , reported in 2008 (2) TN MAC 502 ,
a learned Single Judge of this Court held that on the date of the accident, if the name transfer in the insurance policy has not been effected but the transfer is effected in the Registration Certificate, it cannot be said that there was no privity of contract between the transferee and the insurance company at the
11/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
time of the accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, in the case of Mallamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others , reported in (2014) 14 SCC 137 , held that since the ownership of the vehicle had been transferred and was covered under a valid insurance policy, it cannot be said that there was no privity of contract between the insurer and the transferee, in view of the deeming provision contained in Section 157(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
C.M.A.(MD) No.481 of 2021
12/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
Ilangovan. However, the evidence of R.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, is that the said Rajamani took the deceased Senthilkumar and his (Rajamani) son Manikandan to a land that belonged to one Kumarasen for the purpose of illegally loading sand in a lorry belonging to the said Ilangovan for the brick kiln operated by the deceased Rajamani, and that Rajamani was not employed as a loadman. The FIR (Ex.P1) shows that Rajamani, Senthilkumar, and Manikandan went to the land belonging to Kumarasen to take sand for the brick kiln owned by the deceased Rajamani, and the VAO had sought for action against Kumarasen for permitting illegal quarrying of sand from his land. The evidence before the Commissioner thus would show that Rajamani was running a brick kiln and was not working as a loadman under the said Ilangovan.
13/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
Inspector of Factories as Ex.P6. However, the records indicate that no such documents were filed before the Commissioner. On the other hand, Ex.P1 is the FIR, and Exs.P6 and P7 are the death certificates of the deceased. According to the appellants, Exs.P2, P6, and P7 are documents fitted to prove the employeremployee relationship, which is not so. These documents are of no avail to the claimants for proving that relationship. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to establish the employer-employee relationship, and since there is evidence to suggest that Rajamani was running a brick kiln, the factual finding of the Commissioner cannot be said to be perverse. As such, no interference is called for. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
14/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
and third claimants in W.C.No.81 of 2014 are minors, their shares are directed
to be deposited in an interest-bearing fixed deposit [F.D.] in any nationalized bank until they attain majority. The first claimant in W.C.No.81 of 2014, who is their mother and natural guardian, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once every six months.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.10.2024
Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
JEN
Copy To:
15/16
C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021 in C.M.P.(MD) No.6189 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
JEN
Pre-Delivery Common Judgment made in C.M.A.(MD) Nos.481 & 648 of 2021
19.10.2024
16/16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimants established an employer-employee relationship between the deceased loadmen and the lorry owner Ilangovan?
Whether the insurer was liable despite the vehicle having been transferred without transfer of the insurance policy?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United India Insurance Vs. M.Periyasamy and anotherRelied on¶17
2008 (2) TN MAC 502
Mallamma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and OthersRelied on¶17
(2014) 14 SCC 137 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tamilselvi W/o.Rajamani
Veeranathevar S/o.Muthuthevar
The Branch Manager, M/s.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Palani Town
Ilangovan S/o.Pitchai Thevar
Nagarajan S/o.Valivittan
Palmani W/o.Late.Senthilkumar
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
