Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 1435
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN
P.Mathiyalagan & Another - Appellant
Versus
P.Sagunthala & Others - Respondents
C.M.A.(NPD-S) No.319 of 1998
Decided On : 21 June 2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of whether the deceased was a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the justification of the compensation awarded by the Commissioner.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - 2(8), 51, 51(C) - The Commissioner found that the deceased was a workman under the opposite parties and died due to chest pain arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.78,824/- to the dependants of the deceased.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for the death of a driver who suffered severe chest pain while driving an auto and subsequently died. The appellants challenged the Commissioner's order awarding compensation to the deceased's dependants.
Finding of the Court:
The Commissioner found that the deceased was a workman under the opposite parties and died due to chest pain arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.78,824/- to the dependants of the deceased.
Issues: The main issues were whether the deceased was a workman as per the Act and whether the Commissioner's award of compensation was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Commissioner's decision was based on the evidentiary value, and in the absence of any contra material evidence produced on the side of the appellants, the Commissioner's conclusion was found to be reasonable and confirmed.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the award of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem Region, Salem 7 dated 04.07.1997 made in W.C. No.44 of 1995.)
National Insurance Company Limited, Salem, (hereinafter referred to as "the Insurance Company") who was the third opposite party before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem Region (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioner") and P. Mathiyalagan, the owner of the auto in question, who was the first opposite party before the Commissioner, are the appellants herein and they have challenged the order of the Commissioner made in W.C. No.44 of 1995 dated 04.07.1997.
2. In respect of death of one Periyannan, his wife and minor children along with his parents, have filed a petition for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for a sum of Rs.1 lakh. In support of their claim, the wife of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and one R. Ganesan, a co-auto driver was examined as P.W.2 besides marking Exs. A.1 to A.5. On the side of the first and second opposite parties who are the first and second appellants herein, they themselves were examined as witnesses and on behalf of the Insurance Company who is the second appellant herein, the Assistant Administrative Officer, looking after the vehicle insurance claim was examined as witness and no document was filed on the side of the respondents.
3. According to the respondents/applicants before the Commissioner, one Periyannan, the husband of the first applicant was employed as a driver of the auto bearing Registration No.TN27 A 0029 owned by the first opposite party which is controlled by the second opposite party. On 15.12.1993, when the deceased was driving the auto near Seerangapalayam Road, he suffered severe chest pain and due to that, he lost his control and the auto was upset and he was immediately taken to Dr. Krishnamurthy. After check up, the doctor informed that he was dead and it is therefore, according to the respondents/applicants, the deceased died due to chest pain which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the first opposite party. The deceased was aged 35 years at the time of accident and he was paid wages of Rs.1,500/- per month based on which, the applicants have claimed a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for the death of the bread winner of their family.
4. On the other hand, the first opposite party before the Commissioner filed a counter and contended that:
a. he is the owner-cum-driver of the auto and he never engaged anybody to drive the auto for hire or any other purpose and he did not know the deceased and he never engaged him as a driver and as such, the deceased was not a driver working under him and the second opposite party was not controlling the auto in question
b. the deceased was driving the auto belonging to him on 15.12.1993,
c. it is not correct that the deceased got severe chest pain due to which he lost his control and the auto was upset and he was taken to hospital for treatment,
d. it is true that the applicants have sent a registered notice but absolutely, there is no merit in the notice and therefore, he has not given any reply to that notice and he never agreed to settle the matter as contended by the applicants and he therefore, he denied the very accident and the employment of the deceased under him and prayed the Commissioner to dismiss the compensation petition.
5. The second opposite party before the Commissioner who is the sixth respondent herein has filed counter before the Commissioner and contended that:
a. it is not correct that the deceased was working as auto driver under the employment of the first opposite party and the same was controlled by him and he himself is a stranger to this case,
b. he his employed as driver in Anna Transport Corporation and he has no time to control any auto,
c. it is false to state that the dec
