Ponni, v. P. Senthilnathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.01.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN CMA.No.629 of 2011

1. Ponni

2. Ramamurthi

...Petitioners

vs.

1. P.Senthilnathan

2. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Katpadi Road, Vellore -4.

...Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 10.12.2009 received on 3.4.2010 made in W.C.No.292 of 2006 on the file of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (Deputy commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6) in exonerating the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company from paying compensation to the appellants/claimants.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.S. Sivakumar For Respondents : Mr. J.Michael Visuvasam

JUDGMENT

Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I) dated 10.12.2009 made in W.C.No.292 of 2006, wherein, the authority has granted compensation of Rs.4,44,564/- for an extent, apart from funeral expenses, to the legal representatives of the deceased, for the death of the deceased, who died in an accident on 17.8.2005, that arose out of and during the course of his employment and foisted the liability on the 1st respondent under Workmen's Compensation Act in W.C.No.292 of 2006, vide his order dated 10.12.2009.

2. Admittedly, the fact that the deceased, who was in employment, died in an accident, while in service is not disputed. The deceased was permitted to drive the vehicle as a commercial vehicle driver to which, he is possessing a badge and he cannot drive the heavy vehicle and while driving the heavy vehicle, the deceased met with an accident and died.

3. Though there was a policy, which was in force between 3.10.2004 and 2.10.2005, at the time of accident, the policy covers injury, accident, death that may arise on account of driving commercial vehicle alone and not a heavy vehicle and the authority has rightly arrived at a compensation and foisted the liability on the 1st respondent.

4. The contention that there shall be a pay and recovery and that the Insurance Company shall pay and recover the money from the owner of the vehicle, cannot be accepted, as it would amount to putting a premium for the illegal act and this Court would be encouraging driving of a vehicle, which is not permissible to be driven by any person.

5. As in this case, the deceased, who ought not to have driven the heavy vehicle, met with an accident and died and that assuming for the sake of argument that he possess a valid licence to drive the heavy vehicle, the policy covers only for an injury/accident/death, in case of driving the commercial vehicle and not a heavy vehicle.

6. Thus I find the order of the authority is perfectly in order and cannot be interfered with. Therefore, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (msr) Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To :

The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation (Deputy commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6) +1cc to Mr.J.Michael Visuvasan, Advocate SR.No.6930 +1cc to M/s N.S.Sivakumar, Advocate SR.No.7162 CMA.No.629 of 2011 BP(CO) mst(26/05/2020)

29.01.2020