Allowed

The Branch Manager, v. K. Elangovan

Madras HC29 Jan 2024CMA(MD)/618/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against a Commissioner's order refusing compensation liability, the Madras High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case to the Tribunal. The court directed the 1st defendant to appear and prove that as a claimant's brother, he engaged the claimant as a driver.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order dated 18.02.2021 was set aside, the 1st defendant was directed to appear before the Commissioner to prove the claim, and the Tribunal was directed to re-hear

The Branch Manager, Vs K. Elangovan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 29.01.2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶5

C.M.A(MD)No.618 of 2021

¶6

and

¶7

C.M.P(MD)No.5939 of 2021

¶8

The Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, No.82, Preetham Plaza Ground Floor and First Floor, Chandragandhi Nagar, Ponmeni, Madurai – 625 010.

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

K.Elangovan

¶12

K.Setrayan

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee Compensation Act, against the Order, dated 18.02.2021 passed in E.C.No.42 of 2018 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Dindigul in so far as liability to pay the compensation is concerned.

¶15

For Appellant : Mr.V.Sakthivel For R-1 : Mr.B.Pragash For R-2 : No appearance

¶16

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

¶17

1/4

¶18

JUDGEMENT

¶19

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the Order, dated 18.02.2021 in E.C.No.42 of 2018 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Dindigul.

¶20

The claimant and the 1^st defendant are brothers and the

¶21

contention of the claimant is that the 1^st defendant has engaged the claimant as his driver.

¶22

Even though their relationship is brothers, the 1^st

¶23

defendant has not deposed before the Tribunal to prove that he has engaged the claimant as driver. Hence, the Insurance Company contended the claim of the claimant cannot be accepted and considered. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is inclined to remit the case back to the Tribunal for the appearance of the 1^st defendant.

¶24

Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The Order, dated 18.02.2021 in E.C.No.42 of 2018 passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Dindigul, is hereby set

¶25

2/4

¶26

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

¶27

aside. The 1^st defendant is directed to appear before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Dindigul, to prove the claim of the claimant. The Tribunal is directed to re-hear the claim of the claimant, after issuing notice to all the parties. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

29.01.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No KSA

¶29

¶30

The Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Dindigul.

¶31

2.The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶32

3/4

¶33

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

¶34

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶35

KSA

¶36

Order made in C.M.A(MD)No.618 of 2021

¶37

29.01.2024

¶38

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Branch Manager, v. K. Elangovan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. K. Elangovan

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

Sugirtha, Vs David Raja

The Insurance Inspector Vs Alaguraj

The Managing Director Vs M.Renuka

M. Elizabeth Geetha Vs Manoj Soni

Sudharson Babu Vs Bhaskaran

Ravi Vs the Managing Director