Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1458
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Trichy – Appellant
Versus
Thangammal & Others – Respondents
C.M.A.(MD).No. 778 of 2006 & M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2006
Decided On : 27-03-2015
For the Appellant:D. Senthil, Advocate
For the Respondents:R1 to R5, C.K.M. Appaji, R6, R. Vijayakumar, Advocates, R7, No appearance
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on factual findings, evidence, and relevant case law to uphold the compensation awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Headnote:
Insurance - Employment - Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 3(1) - Exs.A6, A8, A9, A10, A11, R3 - The court discussed the factual findings regarding the deceased's employment, the evidence presented, and the Deputy Commissioner's conclusion. The court also considered relevant case law and upheld the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was employed as a cleaner in a petrol tanker lorry and died during employment. The claimants sought compensation from the Insurance Company, which was the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the Deputy Commissioner's findings that the deceased was employed by the lorry owner and that his death occurred during the course of employment.
Issues: The issues were whether the deceased was employed as a cleaner and whether his death was out of and in the course of employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on factual findings, evidence presented, and relevant case law to uphold the Deputy Commissioner's decision on the deceased's employment and the cause of his death.
Final Decision: The compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner was confirmed, and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed.
1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. A petrol tanker lorry of the sixth respondent was insured with the appellant. According to the sixth respondent, they own four lorries and there were 5 drivers and 5 cleaners. The lorries of the sixth respondent used to go to the depot of Indian Oil Corporation at Tiruchirappalli for loading of petrol and the same would be unloaded at various destinations. The Branch Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Tiruchirappalli is the seventh respondent in this appeal.
2. One Govindaraj was employed as cleaner in the tanker lorry bearing Registration No.TN-28-5866 owned by the sixth respondent. On 21.03.2003, while he was working he died due to heart attack on the spot and the same was conveyed to the first respondent herein, who is the wife of the deceased Govindaraj. The message was conveyed at about 10.00 p.m. on 21.03.2003 by the IOC Drivers and Cleaners Association. The wife was informed that he died due to heart attack and the dead body was brought at 4.00 a.m. on 22.03.2003. The respondents 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased Govindaraj. The respondents 1 to 5 filed W.C.No.4 of 2004 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul claiming compensation for the death of Thiru. Govindaraj. According to them, he died out of and in the course of employment with the sixth respondent. The lorry was insured with the appellant and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
3. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, the first respondent was examined as P.W.1 and one of the cleaners who is a member of the IOC Drivers and Cleaners Association was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. The sixth respondent herein, the owner of the vehicle took a stand that the deceased was not employed by him as a cleaner. Hence it was incumbent on the part of the claimants to prove that he was employed by the sixth respondent.
4. As far as the Insurance Company is concerned, the Insurance Company took a plea that the deceased was not employed in the lorry that was insured with them and he also did not die out of and in the course of employment.
5. The owner examined himself as R.W.1. and marked no documents. The Branch Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation, Good Shed Road, Tiruchirappalli was examined as R.W.2. He produced documents Exs.R1 to R4. One official of the Insurance Company was examined, but no documents were marked.
6. Basing on the evidence of P.W.2 and also basing on Ex.A6 and Ex.R3, the Deputy Commissioner came to the factual conclusion that the deceased was employed by the sixth respondent lorry owner. The Deputy Commissioner also took into account that the lorry owner, though stated that he had 4 lorries and he employed 5 drivers and 5 cleaners, he did not produce the Wage Register and Attendance Register. In these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner recorded a finding that the deceased was employed by the sixth respondent as a cleaner. As to whether he died out of and in the course of employment also, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a finding that due to his stress in the employment, he developed chest pain. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner issued a direction to the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.2,30,145/- and also Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses, totaling to Rs.2,32,645/- to the claimants.
7. The appellant has filed this appeal questioning the order dated 24.04.2006 of the Deputy Commissioner in W.C.No.4 of 2004.
8. While admitting the appeal on 19.07.2006, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:
1) Is not the burden on the part of the claimant to prove that the death was caused to the deceased during the course of employment and due to the accident?
2) Whether Section 3(1) of the W.C. Act will attract for compensation in the absence of an accident?
3) Whether the Tribunal can fix the liability against the Insurance Company especially when the vehicle which was insured with the appellant
