SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Mad) 3753

High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.S. KARNAN, J.
Jayalakshmi & Others
Versus
Ganapathy & Another
C.M.A. No. 369 of 2004
Decided On : 05-11-2013

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants:V. Kumaravelan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Mrs. D. Kamatchi, R2, Mrs. R. Sreevidhya, Advocates.

Entitlement to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is determined by the employment status of the deceased and the location of the accident.

Headnote:

Motor Accident - Compensation Claim - Workmen's Compensation Act - [M.A.C.T.O.P.No.330 of 2002] - [Workmen's Compensation Act] - The court considered the employment status of the deceased, the location of the accident, possession of a valid driving license, and entitlement to compensation. The court found that the deceased was not working as a driver under his father, the accident occurred on private agricultural land, and the claimants were entitled to compensation. The court awarded compensation under various heads and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The claimants filed a compensation claim for the death of Devarajan in a motor vehicle accident. The respondents contested the claim, disputing the employment status of the deceased and the location of the accident.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deceased was not working as a driver under his father, the accident occurred on private agricultural land, and the claimants were entitled to compensation.

Issues: Employment status of the deceased, location of the accident, possession of a valid driving license, entitlement to compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The deceased was not working as a driver under his father, the accident occurred on private agricultural land, and the claimants were entitled to compensation.

Final Decision: The court awarded compensation under various heads and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Judgment :

1. The appellants / claimants have preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2001, made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.330 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Additional Court, Dharmapuri.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The claimants, who are the wife, son and mother of the deceased Devarajan, had filed a claim petition in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.330 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Additional Court, Dharmapuri, claiming a sum of Rs.5,78,000/-as compensation from the respondents for the death of the said Devarajan in a motor vehicle accident.

3. It was submitted that on 02.03.2001, at about 07.30 p.m., when the first claimant's husband Devarajan was driving a tractor bearing registration No.TN29 3810, from Chinnavathalapuram to one Patchiannan's land, he lost his control and as a result, the tractor toppled down. As a result, he had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to it. Hence, the claimants had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the tractor bearing registration No.TN29 3810.

4. The first respondent, who is the owner of the tractor, had filed a counter affidavit and admitted that the deceased had driven the tractor bearing registration No.TN29 3810, on 02.03.2001. Further, it was submitted that when the vehicle was proceeding from Chinnavathalapuram towards Patchiannan's land, the tractor toppled down and the deceased Devarajan was caught under the vehicle and died on the spot. The deceased was paid a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as salary, besides daily batta and he was having a valid driving license. The vehicle was insured with the second respondent Insurance Company.

5. The second respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter affidavit and resisted the claim petition. They had submitted that the accident had taken place in a private land. As such, they are not liable to indemnify the first respondent. Further, they had denied the averments made in the claim petition that the deceased was a driver under the first respondent. As per the claimants, they have to claim compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Further, it was submitted that as per the F.I.R., it is evident that the tractor was used for the land of one Patchiannan for commercial purpose, which is in violation of the policy conditions. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased were not admitted. Further, as per the statement of the claimants, the accident had been committed by the negligence of the deceased.

6. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed four issues for consideration namely:

i. Is it true that the deceased Devarajan, who was a driver of the tractor bearing registration No.TN29 3810, was under the employment of the first respondent as a driver?

ii. Whether the accident happened at the public place or at the private agricultural land?

iii. Whether the deceased was possessing a valid driving license at the time of accident? and

iv. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the quantum of compensation?

7. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and five documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P5 namely F.I.R., postmortem report, insurance policy, driving license of the deceased and R.C., Book. On the side of the respondents, one Ulaganathapillai was examined as R.W.1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2 namely insurance policy and enquiry report.

8. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that she is the wife of the deceased and the second claimant is the son of the deceased and that the third claimant is the mother of the deceased. She deposed that on 02.03.2001, at about 07.30 p.m., when her husband was driving the tractor bearing registration No.TN29 3810, from Chinnavathalapuram towards Patchiannan's land and while the tractor was proceeding d















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top