Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. KANNAMMAL, J.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai - Appellant
Versus
K. Usha Rani & Others - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 3013 of 2018 & C.M.P. Nos. 623 of 2021 & 22861 of 2018
Decided On : 13-04-2022
Employees Compensation Act - Claim Petition - Sections 10(4) and 4 - The court discussed the employer-employee relationship, nexus to the accident, and liability of the insurance company. The court held that the deceased died during the course of his employment and the claim petition was maintainable. However, the insurance company was not liable as the accident did not occur while the deceased was traveling in the insured vehicle. The court also referenced legal provisions and case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants sought compensation under the Employees Compensation Act for the death of their son in a motor vehicle accident. The insurance company contested the claim, arguing that there was no nexus to the accident and the insured vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased died during the course of his employment and the claim petition was maintainable. However, the insurance company was not liable as the accident did not occur while the deceased was traveling in the insured vehicle.
Issues: Employer-employee relationship, nexus to the accident, liability of the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The deceased died during the course of his employment, but the insurance company was not liable as the accident did not occur while the deceased was traveling in the insured vehicle.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment in relation to the liability of the insurance company and directed the employers to deposit the compensation amount and recover it from the insurance company.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to set aside the decree and judgment dated 28.05.2018 made in W.C.Case No.392 of 2010, on the file of Court of Commissioner for Employees Compensation-2 (Joint Commissioner of Labour-2), Chennai.)
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the decree and judgment dated 28.05.2018 made in W.C.Case No.392 of 2010, on the file of Court of Commissioner for Employees Compensation-2 (Joint Commissioner of Labour-2), Chennai.
2. The respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of one Suresh, who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident, which took place on 16.03.2007. They have filed the W.C.No.392 of 2010 before the Commissioner of Employees Compensation and Joint Commissioner of Labour-2, Chennai-6, under Section 10 (4) and Section 4 of Employees Compensation Act 1923, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of their son arising out of and in the course of his employment. The learned Commissioner for Employees Compensation of Labour-2, Chennai, on consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, has passed an award on 28.05.2018 granting a sum of Rs.4,10,200/- with interest against the owner of the van, which was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company herein.
3. According to the respondents 1 and 2, their son Suresh was working as a loadman for the van bearing Registration No.TN 09 AJ 9956 owned by the 1st respondent/3rd respondent herein and insured the vehicle with the appellant/Insurance Company. It is also stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.250/- as daily wages. Therefore, for the death of the deceased, the claim petition was filed against the owner and insurer of the Van.
4. The 1st respondent/3rd respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle. She resisted the claim petition by filing counter affidavit. It is stated that the deceased was paid a sum of Rs.150/- as daily wages and not Rs.250/- as claimed by the claimants. It is also claimed that she took insurance policy with the appellant/Insurance Company to cover untowards incident and hence, the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
5. The appellant/Insurance Company resisted the claim petition by way of filing counter affidavit, denying the existence of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle involved in the accident and also denied the relationship of the claimants with the deceased, his avocation as loadman with the 1st respondent/3rd respondent herein. The Insurance Company therefore prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. On the same lines, the respondents 3 and 4 in the claim petition also denied the claim of the claimants by filing counter affidavit.
7. Before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, in order to prove their claim, the claimants examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P13, while, on behalf of the respondents side, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.
8. On consideration of entire materials, both oral and documentary evidence, by award dated 28.05.2018, the learned Commissioner of Employees Compensation, has awarded a sum of Rs.4,10,200/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the accident till the date of deposit, payable by the appellant Insurance Company. Challenging the said award, the appellant/Insurance Company has come forward with the present appeal.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would contend that the Commissioner has wrongly held that the claim petition was maintainable and that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay huge compensation of Rs.4,10,200/- without any basis. He would further contend that the Commissioner has failed to appreciate that there was no nexus to the accident and the death of the deceased and the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 09 AJ 9956 insured with the appellant. He pointed out that the death of the deceased occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the
An employee's death due to chest pain and cardiac arrest while on duty is compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the insurer is liable to pay compensation with interest at 12% pe....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the employer-employee relationship and the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment, along with the ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the deceased's status as an employee and the occurrence of his death during the course of employment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for an employer's liability for compensation, there must be a causal relationship between the accident and the employment, as per Section 3....
The court upheld the Commissioner’s findings that the deceased were workmen under the Employees Compensation Act, affirming that appeals are limited to substantial questions of law.
Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner.
Workmen’s compensation - Natural death - Death by heart attack is an accident is well recognized.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
