Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai
Versus
S. Sujatha and Others
C.M.A. (NPD-B) No. 738 of 2001 and Cross Objection No. 27 of 2006
Decided On : 5 March 2008
K. Suryanarayanan, for Appellant
U.M. Ravichandran, for A. Dhanmugaraj, for Respondents
The judgment establishes the importance of sufficient documentary evidence to prove the employer-employee relationship and the causal connection between an accident and employment under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Workmen’s Compensation - Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1928 - Section 2(1)(n), Section 3(1) - The judgment discusses the employer-employee relationship, liability of the insurance company, and the causal connection between the accident and employment.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was a car driver who died in an accident. The claimants sought compensation from the insurance company, alleging that the deceased was employed by the owner of the vehicle and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. The insurance company denied the employment relationship and liability for compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no sufficient evidence to prove the employer-employee relationship and the causal connection between the accident and employment. The court held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.
Issues: The key issues were whether there was an employer-employee relationship, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, and the liability of the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for sufficient documentary evidence to establish the employer-employee relationship and the causal connection between the accident and employment. It also highlighted the conditions for the employer's liability under Section 3(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, and the Cross-Objection filed by the claimants was dismissed. The court held that the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.
1. The insurance Company, fastened with the liability to pay compensation to legal representatives of the deceased, has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. Brief facts leading the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows:
The respondents 1 and 2 are wife and minor daughter of the deceased Senthil Kumar, who died in an accident, which took place on 2.1.1997. According to them, the deceased Senthil Kumar was working as a Car driver with the third respondent/first opposite party and he was paid Rs. 2,500/- as monthly wages, with daily bata of Rs. 10/-. On 2.1.1997, about 5.15 p.m., when the vehicle bearing Registration No. KLA 9549, owned by the third respondent/first opposite party was driven by the husband of the first respondent, along P.R. Bridge, Vasudeva Nallur, Tirunveli, the car met with an accident and the driver of the vehicle, Senthil Kumar died on the spot. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the owner of the vehicle, third respondent has insured the above vehicle with the appellant-Insurance Company at the Branch Office, situated at Chinnakadu Kollam and the same was valid upto 26.2.1997. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the deceased died in an accident which took place, arising out of and in the course of the employment with third respondent/owner of the vehicle. As the owner of the car has insured the vehicle with the appellant-Insurance Company, both the third respondent and the Insurance Company are liable to pay compensation. The respondents 1 and 2 have further submitted that the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 28 years and they have claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest.
3. The first opposite party, owner of the vehicle and the father of the deceased, remained ex parte before the Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation. The appellant/second opposite party before the Commissioner of Workman’s Compensation in their objections denied the averments relating to the employment with the third respondent. They also denied the contention that the accident had occurred, arising out of and in the course of employment. The appellant further contended that there is no employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the third respondent and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. They also disputed that the owner of the vehicle has taken an insurance policy covering the vehicle on the date of the accident. Without prejudice to the above. the Compare has further submitted that the insurance Policy was not extended to include any interest/penalty on the insured, on account of their failure to comply with the requirements laid down under the terms and conditions of the insurance Policy and also as per the Workmen’s Compensation. In their additional objections. the appellant has further contended that the deceased Senthil Kumar was driving the car with his family members including his mother met with an accident and died. There is no contract of employment between the deceased and his father/first opposite party. The owner of the vehicle himself did not have the benefit of indemnify and his family members were not covered under the Contract of Insurance.
4. Before the Commissioner for Workmens’ Compensation, the first respondent-wife was examined as C.W.1 and the driver of the first opposite party/third respondent was examined as C.W.2. Exhibit C-1 – Post-mortem certificate, Exhibit C-2 – Driving Licence, Exhibit C-3 – Insurance Policy, Exhibit 4 – Legs’ Notice, Exhibits C-5 and C-6 – Acknowledgment Cards, Exhibit C-7 – Reply from the First Opposite Party and Exhibit C-8 – F.I.R were marked on the side of the claimants/respondents 1 and 2. The Administrative Officer of the appellant-insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Exhibit R-1 – Proposal Form for Motor Policy, Exhibit R-2 – Insurance Policy, Exhibit R-3 – Notice sent to the first opposite party and Exhibit R-4 – Acknowledgment due were marked on the side of
