Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4557
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.M. BASHEER AHAMED, J.
The National Insurance Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Kulanthai Ammal & Ors. - Respondents
C.M.A(MD)No.1067 of 2012
Decided On : 12-06-2018
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Saravanan, Mr.R.Thangapandian, Mr.R.Rajesh Kumar
Headnote:
Workmen Compensation Act - Section 30 – claim of Compensation - vehicle bearing Registration- objections and adducing evidence - Injury - claim petition was filed before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation seeking a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensation, for the death working as driver in the above said bore well lorry under the employment of the 7th respondent herein and died during the course of employment. The deceased was employed as permanent driver under the 7th respondent. Deceased was sent to from by his employer, for doing the contract work of drilling bore well, through lorry bearing Registration No.TN-10-C-9394. During drilling borewell, the deceased driver took rest lying in the cabin of the vehicle and after completion of the drilling work, he was found dead. Death of the deceased was reported to the Industrial Police Station, Rathalam and a case was registered in Crime No.4 of 2006. Postmortem upon the deceased was also done. Hence, the 7th respondent herein, as employer and owner of the said vehicle and the appellant herein, as insurer of the said lorry of the 7th respondent are severally and jointly liable to pay compensation as sought for in the claim petition - Respondent did not file any objection to the claim and thereafter, did not turn up and he was set ex-parte in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Dindigul. The appellant herein/insurer alone contested the said claim by filing objections and adducing evidence – Held, claimants have admitted that while the driver taking rest by lying in the cabin of the vehicle viz., lorry, the driver of the lorry was found dead. Claimants have pleaded in their claim petition that due to his restless and strainful work and drilling vibration and quivering movement or sound made him psychological set back. There is no dispute that the deceased was aged about 60 years on the date of death. P.Ws.1 and 2 did not depose during their evidence that the death was caused to the deceased due to restless strainful work/driving and drilling vibration or sound, as pleaded in their claim petition. As per the medical certificate/postmortem certificate produced by the claimants, the deceased died due to cardiac arrest/heart attack. There is no evidence to show that the deceased was having or suffering from any ailment or disease prior to his death. Similarly, there is no evidence to prove that the death is caused due to his stress and strain because of long way driving - Admittedly, the driver/deceased did not die as a result of accident involving a vehicle, but the vehicle was taken by the deceased in the course of employment at the behest of the 7th respondent/owner/employer. There was no casual connection between the death of the deceased and the vehicle while the deceased was sleeping/taking rest in the cabin of the lorry he was found dead after completion of the drilling, which was carried Maharashtra. Since there was no such casual connection, the insurer would not be liable in terms of the policy as the borewell lorry which was the subject matter of the insurance was not involved in the accident and the insurer had no liability. Only because a death was taken place in the course of employment will not amount to accident, in other wards, death must arise out of accident. There is no presumption that an accident had occurred. It is not established in this case that the death was aggravated due to stress and strain. To prove that accident had taken place, factors to be established, inter alia, are: 1. Stress and strain arising during the course of employment - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, against the Award, dated 30.10.2010, made in W.C.No.2 of 2007, on the file of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul, and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award dated 30.10.2010 passed in W.C.No.2 of 2007, by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul, and allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the order passed in W.C.No.2 of 2017 on 30.10.2010, awarding a sum of Rs.2,34,209/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, in a claim petition filed by R1 to R6 herein/claimants and also L.Rs. of the deceased one Palaniappan. Appellant herein is the insurer of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-10-C-9394, owned by the 7th respondent herein.
3. The claim petition was filed before the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul, seeking a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensation, for the death of N.Palaniappan, working as driver in the above said borewell lorry under the employment of the 7th respondent herein and died during the course of employment. The deceased was employed as permanent driver under the 7th respondent. Deceased was sent to Rathalam in Madhyapradesh from Namakkal, by his employer, for doing the contract work of drilling borewell, through lorry bearing Registration No.TN-10-C-9394. During drilling borewell, the deceased driver took rest lying in the cabin of the vehicle and after completion of the drilling work, he was found dead. Death of the deceased was reported to the Industrial Police Station, Rathalam and a case was registered in Crime No.4 of 2006. Postmortem upon the deceased was also done. Hence, the 7th respondent herein, as employer and owner of the said vehicle and the appellant herein, as insurer of the said lorry of the 7th respondent are severally and jointly liable to pay compensation as sought for in the claim petition.
4. The 7th respondent did not file any objection to the claim and thereafter, did not turn up and he was set ex-parte in the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at Dindigul. The appellant herein/insurer alone contested the said claim by filing objections and adducing evidence. The Competent Authority/Deputy Commissioner of Labour passed an award directing the second respondent Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.2,34,209/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which, the said compensation amount is to be deposited along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident till the date of deposit.
5. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the insurer/2nd respondent filed the present appeal before this Court after depositing the award amount before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the death of the deceased was a natural one and he was not accelerated due to nature of employment he was carrying on and in the absence of any casual connection between the nature of job and the cause of death, a claim under the Workmen Compensation Act is not maintainable and there is no proof as to the cause of death and as such, the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation.
7. The 7th respondent herein is the owner of the borewell lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-10-C-9394 of which the deceased Palaniappan was employed as permanent driver. The claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Palaniappan taking the stand that the death of the deceased had occurred during the course of and within the employment under the 7th respondent herein. The vehicle was the subject matter of Insurance with the appellant/insurer and therefore it was claimed that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation
