IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.M.A.No.1788 of 2022

and

CMP.No.12943 of 2022

M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Divisional Office,

No.90-A, KVA Complex,

Thuraiyur Road, Namakkal. ... Appellant

Vs.

1.Senthilkumar,

S/o.Perumal

2.K.Jeganathan,

S/o. Kandasamy, ... Respondents

PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, prays to set aside the order passed in EC.No.132 of 2018, dated 18.04.2022 on the file of Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor,

Erode.

For Appellant : Mr.M.B.Raghavan

for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates

For R1 : Mr.I.Abrar md Abdullah

For R2 : No appearance

JUDGMENT

The appellant has filed this appeal against the award passed in EC.No.132 of 2018, dated 18.04.2022 on the file of Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor, Erode.

2. Challenging the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, in E.C.No.132 of 2018 on the file of the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Coonoor, Erode, the 2nd respondent has preferred this appeal.

3. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent/applicant filed a petition under Section 10(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, stating that he was employed as a cleaner under the 2nd respondent herein in the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 30 F 7263. On 04.01.2018 at about 7.00 p.m., the applicant, who was working as a cleaner and was also driving the said lorry, left the vehicle at a workshop as it required repair. In order to purchase spare parts for the lorry, he took a motorcycle belonging to his employer/2nd respondent. While travelling from Ernavaram to Tindamangalam, an unknown lorry coming from the opposite direction hit him, causing grievous injuries. In spite of treatment, he was unable to fully recover and was not able to perform his normal work. He claimed compensation, including Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The lorry was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company/appellant.

4. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle admitted that the claimant was employed as a cleaner under him for about one year. He further stated that when the lorry was under repair, the claimant took his motorcycle to purchase spare parts and was hit by an unknown vehicle, sustaining grievous injuries which rendered him incapable of working as before. He also stated that the claimant was receiving a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company contended that they were not aware of any employer–employee relationship between the insured and the claimant. They further contended that the accident did not occur while the claimant was discharging his duties as a cleaner in the insured lorry bearing Registration No. TN 30 F 7263. Hence, they contended that they were not liable to pay any compensation and, at the most, only the owner would be liable.

6. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. On the side of the claimant PW.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the respondents D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 was marked.

7. On considering the evidence, the Commissioner of Labour concluded that, as per the admission of the owner of the vehicle, the claimant had been employed as a cleaner for about one year. Considering the medical records, the Commissioner further concluded that the claimant sustained injuries while performing duties connected to his employment, i.e., purchasing spare parts for the lorry. Though he was travelling on a two-wheeler at the time, the Commissioner held that the accident occurred during the course of employment and that the lorry was insured with the appellant. Accordingly, an award of Rs.5,09,823/- was passed directing the insurance company to deposit the said amount within four weeks. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurance company / appellant h