Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 302
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
N. Senthilkumar
Versus
S. Ramesh and Another
C.M.A. No. 2800 of 2002
Decided On : 30-01-2008
U. Anandamoorthy, for N. Manokaran, for Appellant.
R. Subbiah, for Respondent No. 2.
The main legal point established is that the insurer is duty bound to satisfy the claim for compensation, even in case of violation of policy conditions, and the interaction of the Workmens Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act in determining the insurer's liability.
Headnote:
Workmens Compensation Act - Compensation - Section 147, Section 149 - The court discussed the violation of policy conditions by the insured and the duty of the insurer to indemnify the employer for the compensation amount. The court also considered the interaction of the Workmens Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, and the insurer's liability in case of breach of policy conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sustained serious injuries in a road accident while driving a vehicle during the course of employment. The insurance company denied liability due to violation of policy conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the insurance company and the employer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant, as the injuries were sustained during the course of employment.
Issues: Violation of policy conditions, insurer's duty to indemnify, interaction of Workmens Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the insurer cannot escape liability for compensation, even in case of violation of policy conditions, and discussed the interaction of the Workmens Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act in determining the insurer's liability.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, modifying the order of the Deputy Commissioner and directing the insurance company and the employer to pay compensation to the claimant along with interest.
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs. 93,990/-under Workmens Compensation Act, directing the first respondent-Employer to pay the Compensation, Claimant has preferred this Appeal.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this Appeal are as follows:
(i) On 24.2.2001 e 3. p.m. the Claimant drove the Mini Auto from Coimbatore to Salem N.H. and when the Mini Auto was proceeding near Vaikkalmedu, it was hit from behind by the lorry bearing Regn. No. PY 4-8184. Due to the accident. Claimant sustained serious head injury and fracture at his 6th and 7th ribs, left leg knee, thigh and lacerated injury all over the body. The Claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Erode, where first aid treatment was given and he was referred to a Private Hospital, Erode, for better treatment. Alleging that he sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, the Claimant has filed the Claim Petition under Workmens Compensation Act claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
(ii) Opposing the claim, the second respondent-Insurance Co. has filed counter affidavit denying its liability on the ground that there was violation of policy condition as he had driven the vehicle along with two other persons, which is against the policy conditions.
It is further alleged that as per the policy only two persons are allowed to travel including the driver, since the vehicle is a Goods Carrier-The Insurance Co. has also denied the age,. occupation, income expenses and loss of income of the Claimant.
(iii) Before the Tribunal, Claimant was examined as P.W.1. Dr.Duraisamy was examined as P.W.2. Exhibits A-1 to A-5 were marked. On the side of second respondent-Insurance Co. Copy of Policy was marked as Exhibit R-1. One Kannusamy, Assistant Divisional Manager of second respondent-Insurance Co. was examined as R.W.1. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner has held that the Claimant sustained injuries during the course of employment. However, the Deputy Commissioner has held that by taking two persons in the Mini Auto, there was violation of policy conditions and therefore, the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay the compensation and only the Employer is to pay compensation to the Claimant.
3. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Appellant-Claimant Mr. U. Anandamoorthy has submitted that the second respondent-Insurance Co. cannot escape from its liability to pay the compensation and even if there is violation of policy conditions, the Insurer has to pay the claim and the insurer is entitled to recover the amount from the insured. It was further submitted that workmens right to claim compensation should not be defeated on technical grounds and the protection by way of beneficial legislation like Workmens Compensation Act cannot be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds.
4. Drawing the attention of Court to Insurance Policy, the learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Co. Mr. R. Subbiah has submitted that the seat capacity is only two, whereas, three persons travelled in the Mini Auto and when there was deliberate violation of policy conditions, the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay the compensation.
5. Admittedly, the Claimant had valid driving licence to drive the Mini Auto bearing Regn. No. TN-34-6413. It is equally admitted that while he was driving the vehicle in National Highways, the Mini Auto met with the accident and Claimant sustained grievous injuries. The finding that the Claimant sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of employment is unassailable.
6. The main point falling for consideration is, when there was valid Insurance Policy covering the risk, whether the insurer is duty bound to satisfy the claim and whether, there was violation of policy conditions as alleged by the second respondent-Insurance Co. to absolve the Insurance Co. from its liability.
7. Insurance Co. pleaded that the owner of the offending vehicle com
