C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 28.01.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI

C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021

and

C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9084 & 9085 of 2021

The Branch Manager,

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Divisional Office – IV,

52, South Masi Street,

Maduria – 625 001.

...Appellant/2^nd Respondent

Vs.

1.Mohamed Mahroof

...1^st Respondent/Claimant

2.Panchavarnam

...2^nd Respondent/1^st Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the

Employees Compensation Act, to set aside the order passed by the

Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Madurai in E.C.No.26 of 2014,

dated 05.01.2021 and dismiss the same as against the appellant.

For Appellant

:Mr.N.Dilipkumar

For Respondents

:No Appearance

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the

award passed by the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Madurai,

in E.C.No.26 of 2014, dated 05.01.2021

2.It is a case of injury. The claimant was employed as a

cleaner under the first respondent. On 20.02.2012, at 12.30 p.m.,

the petitioner was travelling as a cleaner along with driver and

another for loading fish in TATA ACE bearing registration No.TN-65-

M-9058 proceeding from Devakottai to Karaikudi High Way road. While

they came near Azhagammai Cotton Mill, a lorry bearing registration

No.TN-45-C-2169 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner

and without any signal was stopped in the middle of the road. While

the driver of the first respondent's lorry overtaking the lorry and

had applied sudden break, dashed behind the lorry. Due to which, the

petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries and fracture.

1/3

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.M.A.(MD)No.959 of 2021

3.The petitioner has filed a petition in E.C.No.26 of 2014

before the, Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Madurai, seeking

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4.Before the lower Court, on the side of the petitioner, two

witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and sixteen documents

were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.16. On the side of the second respondent

R.W.1 was examined and one document was marked as Ex.R1 and one

Court document was marked as Ex.C1.

5.The Commissioner of Workmen Compensation, Maduri after

considering the oral and documentary evidences and arguments made on

either side, held that at the time of accident the petitioner was

working as a cleaner under the first respondent's vehicle insured

with the appellant herein and therefore, fastened liability on the

appellant/Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,83,383/-, as

compensation to the claimant. Against which, the appellant/second

respondent has filed this present appeal.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended

that there is no material to establish that the claimant was

employed under the owner of the vehicle. In the absence of an

employer – employee relationship between the claimant and the

vehicle owner, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation

under the Employees Compensation Act.

7.Heard Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and No representation for the second respondent.

8.On perusal of records it is seen that the Tribunal held that

at the time of accident, the claimant was working as a cleaner under

the first respondent's vehicle insured with the appellant. But

there is no documents filed on the side of the claimant, to

establish that the claimant was employed under the owner of the

vehicle. On the other hand, the claimant, who was examined as PW1

has admitted in his evidence that ''Njtpgl;bdk;> f Pof ;fiu> ,uhkehjGuk;

Mfpa ,lq;fspy; k Pd ; tpahghuk; nra;ag;gLfpwJ vd;why; rhp. ehd; k Pid

tpiyf;F thq;fp filf;F tpw;Ngd; vd;why; rhp. Nghy P]hh; vd;id

tprhhpf;Fk;NghJ ehd; Njtpgl;bdj;jpy; FbapUe;J tUfpNwd;. k Pd ; tpahghuk;

nra;J tUfpNwd; vd;why; rh