Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 1691
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
The United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Versus
Kunjal, Others
C.M.A. No. 3839 of 2004
Decided On : 12-04-2010
For the Appellant:Mythili Suresh for M.S. Krishnan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, & R2, V.P. Sengottuvel & R3, N. Manokaran , Advocates.
The central legal point established is the interpretation of insurance policy clauses and the determination of liability of the insurer in cases of accidental death during employment.
Headnote:
Workmen Compensation Act - Compensation - Sections 10, 30, 3 & 4 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 147(1), 164 - Insurance - Liability of Insurer - Deceased employed as helper in rig unit lorry - Accidental death during employment - Validity of insurance policy - Interpretation of policy clauses - Compensation awarded to claimants upheld - Appellant's liability confirmed
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, employed as a helper in a rig unit lorry, died in an accident while working. The claim for compensation was contested by the insurance company, arguing that the accident did not occur during the use of the vehicle and that the deceased was not covered under the insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The Workmen Compensation Commissioner held that the deceased died due to injuries during the course of his employment, and awarded compensation to the claimants. The court confirmed the award, upholding the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation.
Issues: The issues considered included the circumstances of the deceased's death, his age and income, the quantum of compensation, and the liability to pay compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the insurance policy clauses and determined that the deceased was covered under the policy, holding the insurance company liable to pay compensation. The court also considered the nature of the deceased's work and the circumstances of the accident in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the Award and Decree of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner were confirmed.
1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the Award and Decree, dated 11.10.2004, made in W.C.No.501 of 2002, on the file of the Workmen Commissioner Court/Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,83,273/-.
2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/second respondent, The United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Namakkal, has filed the above appeal praying to set aside the award and decree passed by the Tribunal.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows:
On 11.03.2002, at about 04.30 a.m. when the deceased Oomiyan @ Marappan was working as a helper in the first opposite partys rig unit lorry bearing registration No. TN28 Y6579, at one Murugans place at Thennagaram Village of Polur, Tiruvannamalai District, he slipped and fell into the well. Immediately, he was taken to Polur Government Hospital by Kumar, Senthil and Palaniappan and admitted there as an inpatient. Even though best treatment was given to him, he died on the same day at the said hospital.
4. Regarding the said accident, the Kalasapakkam Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.95 of 2002, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. On 11.03.2002, the deceased died during the course of his employment as helper in the above said first opposite partys rig unit lorry bearing registration No.TN28 Y6579, under the employment of first opposite party.
5. The deceased was aged about 30 years at the time of the said accident and was earning an income of Rs.5,000/-per month. He was the sole earning member. Hence, the appellant, who is the mother of the deceased Oomiyan @ Marappan has claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the first opposite party, the owner of the rig unit lorry and the second opposite party, the insurer of the above said rig unit lorry, under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1988.
6. The first opposite party, in her counter, has admitted that she is the owner of the said rig unit lorry bearing registration No.TN28 Y6579 and that it had been covered under a valid policy of insurance with the second opposite party at the time of the said accident. It has been stated that the said Oomiyan @ Marappan had been working as a helper under her employment for the past five years. It was also stated that while the said Marappan was trying to get inside the well by means of a bucket attached to the rig unit lorry, he had lost his grip and fell into the well and that even after treatment, he had died. She had further stated that a claim form has been sent to the second opposite party, wherein the details of the accident had been mentioned. She has stated that at the time of the said accident, the deceased Marappan was paid a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/-.She had stated that as the said rig unit lorry had been covered under a valid policy of insurance with the second opposite party, only the second opposite party could be held liable to pay compensation, if any liability is fastened and has stated that the claim as against her should be dismissed.
7. The second opposite party, in his counter, has stated that there was no employee-employer relationship existing between the deceased and the first opposite party. It has been stated that as the deceased had fallen into the well, while he was trying to get inside the well through a bucket, it is evidence that the first opposite partys vehicle was not in use as a vehicle. Hence, it was submitted that as the deceased Marappan had not died during the use of the first opposite partys rig unit lorry but had died due to the injuries, which had not been caused, while the rig unit lorry had been in use.It has been submitted that the employee/helper is not covered under insurance as per the Motor Vehicles Act. The second opposite party has not admitted that the deceased Marappan died only during the course of his employment under the first opposite party. The second opposite party has also not admitted that the
