The Madurai Bench allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The Court held that the Workmen Compensation Commissioner erred in fastening liability on the appellant insurer because there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the deceased's employer, as the car was registered in the sixth respondent's name.
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.699 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 12.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A(MD)No.699 of 2010
The Manager, The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., 674-Periakulam Road, Theni.
... Appellant/Respondent 3
Vs.
1.Tmt.K.Binnyammal 2.Tmt.G.Jeyamani 3.Minor Gopi 4.Minor Nathiya
...Respondents 1to4/ Petitioners
(R3&R4 minors represented by their mother and guardian respondent 2)
5.K.Nallathambi ...Respondent 5/Respondent1 6.P.Umadevi ...Respondent 6/Respondent2
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, against the award dated 31.12.2009 received by the appellant on 10.02.2010 and made in W.C.No.39 of
1
C.M.A(MD)No.699 of 2010
2007 on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.
For Appellant :Mr.J.S.Murali For R1 to R4 :No appearance For R5&R6 :No appearance
JUDGMENT
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.
2.The respondents No.1 to 4 are the claimants before the Commissioner. The fifth respondent is said to be the employer of the deceased employee and the sixth respondent is said to be the insured. Though notice was sent to the fifth and sixth respondents, none have entered appearance. The respondents No.1 to 4 are represented by the learned counsel. However, there is no representation for the respondents 1 to 4 on 16.11.2022, 21.04.2023, 08.08.2024 and 12.08.2024.
2
C.M.A(MD)No.699 of 2010
3.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
sixth respondent is the policy holder and even as per the claim petition, the deceased was working under the fifth respondent with whom the appellant has not entered into any contract. The finding of the Commissioner that the accident took place during the course of employment, is without any basis and hence, prayed for setting aside the award.
4.The instant appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of appeal:
“1.Whether the Commissioner is justified in fastening the liability on the appellant without considering the plea of the appellant that there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the employer of the deceased?
2.Whether the finding of the Commissioner that the defenses available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is not available to the claim under Workmen Compensation Act is sustainable in law?
3
C.M.A(MD)No.699 of 2010
3.Whether the default interest is payable from the date of accident or from the date of award?”
5.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made
and also perused the materials available on record.
6.The fifth respondent, who is said to be the employer of the appellant remained ex-parte before the Commissioner. The sixth respondent also remained ex-parte before the Commissioner. There is no privity of contract between the appellant and the fifth respondent, employer of the deceased. The fifth respondent is said to have purchased the car from the sixth respondent. However, there is no document produced on the side of the claimants to substantiate the said fact. In any event, the Registration Certificate stands in the name of the sixth respondent, who is the insured. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Commissioner ought not to have fastened the liability on the appellant, when there is no privity of contract between appellant and the fifth respondent. The
4
C.M.A(MD)No.699 of 2010
first substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Since the appeal has to succeed in view of the above answer to the first question of law, this Court is not going into the other questions of law.
7.In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the award already deposited by filing suitable application before the Commissioner. No costs.
12.08.2024
NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ns
5
C.M.A(MD)No.699 of 2010
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Ns
To
C.M.A(MD)No.699 of 2010
12.08.2024
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner is justified in fastening liability on the appellant without finding privity of contract with the deceased's employer?
Whether defenses under Section 149(2) of Motor Vehicles Act are sustainable against the claim under Workmen Compensation Act?
Whether default interest is payable from the date of accident or the date of award?
The Manager, The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.
Tmt.K.Binnyammal
Tmt.G.Jeyamani
Minor Gopi
Minor Nathiya
K.Nallathambi
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
