Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.VIJAYAKUMAR
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
AJEYAN – Respondent
Insurance - Employees Compensation - Workmen's Compensation Act, Section 21 - The court discussed the liability of the insurance company, the employer-employee relationship, and jurisdictional issues, ultimately determining that the claimant failed to establish his case, concluding the appeal in favor of the insurance company.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, alleging injuries from a vehicle accident while driving for the first respondent, was awarded compensation by the Commissioner. The insurance company appealed, disputing liability and jurisdiction, asserting that the claimant's employer-employee relationship was unproven.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant did not substantiate his assertions of an employer-employee relationship or the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. It determined the Commissioner erred in awarding compensation based on insufficient evidence.
Issues: 1. Did the claimant prove the employer-employee relationship? 2. Was the jurisdiction of the Commissioner at Madurai valid given the accident's location? 3. Was the interest rate on compensation correctly applied?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without establishing a working relationship or the vehicle's connection to the incident, the Commissioner improperly imposed liability on the insurance company, undermining the compensation award.
Final Decision: The court set aside the award and ruled in favor of the insurance company.
The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Madurai in E.C.No.18 of 2013 primarily on the ground of liability.
(A)Factual Matrix:
2.According to the injured claimant, he was working as a driver under the first respondent's Minidor Van bearing Registration No.TN33-AZ-3900 and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6000/- with batta. He had further contended that on 10.06.2006 at about 11.30 p.m, when he was driving the Tempo Minidor Van from Pollachi to Thiruppur, due to sudden brake failure, the Van got capsized. The claimant had further contended that in the said accident, he had sustained grievous injuries in the spinal cord and both of his kidneys were damaged. According to him, he was initially admitted to Government Hospital, Pollachi and thereafter, he was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore and he took treatment between 11.02.2006 to 14.02.2006 there. Later, he was admitted to a Government Hospital in Kerala and then he was admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai from 14.08.2006 to 05.10.2006 and he underwent surgery. 3.The claimant had further contended that the accident was reported to Negamam Police Station and an F.I.R was registered in Crime No.185 of 2006 against the claimant himself. The vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the second respondent. Hence, he had prayed for a compensation of Rs.10/- lakhs. 4.After receiving notice, the owner of the vehicle had remained exparte.
5.The Insurance Company had filed a counter contending that there was no employer employee relationship between the claimant and the first respondent. They had also raised an objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai to entertain an application for an accident that has taken place at Negamam, Coimbatore District. They have further contended that the injured claimant was not having an effective driving licence on the date of the accident. Hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition as against the insurance company.
6.The Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act had relied upon Exhibit P5 certificate issued by the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore and Exhibit C1-medical records of Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and arrived at a finding that the claimant had sustained injuries due to the road traffic accident.
7.The Tribunal had further relied upon the oral and documentary evidence of Sub-Inspector of Police, Negamam Police Station to arrive at a finding that the criminal case was dropped as 'mistake of fact' on the ground that the claimant had not co-operated for the enquiry. That apart, they were not able to locate the owner of the vehicle who is arrayed as first respondent in the claim petition. The Commissioner had found that just because the police officials were not able to locate the owner of the vehicle, it cannot be said that there was no accident at all. Merely because the criminal case was closed as 'mistake of fact', the claim petition cannot be dismissed. The other records indicate that the claimant had sustained injuries due to road traffic accident and ultimately held that the claimant had sustained injuries in the course of his employment.
8.The Tribunal had further found that the claimant had entered into a mortgage deed for his residence in Madurai which is marked as Exhibit P8 and the certificate issued by Village Administrative Officer marked as Exhibit P9 to arrive at a finding that the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Madurai is having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Based upon the above said finding, a compensation of Rs.5,24,248/- was awarded. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company raising the following substantial questions of law:
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
