The Manager v. P.Thangaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.09.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA C.M.A.No.1992 of 2016 The Manager Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., TP Claims-Legal Department "Reliance House", 6th Floor No.6, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam Chennai 600 006 .. Appellant -vs1. P.Thangaraj

2. Syed Kadar .. Respondents Memorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the award and decree dated 28.12.2015 made in W.C.No.366 of 2011 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem.

For Appellant ::

Mr.S.Arun Kumar

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem in W.C.No.366 of 2011 dated 28.12.2015 awarding a sum of Rs.4,13,381/-, as against the claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, for the multiple injuries sustained by the first respondent/injured claimant, the insurance company has brought this appeal, on the ground that the authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act has miserably failed to note that the first respondent is not entitled to maintain the claim petition, as he failed to establish the employee-employer relationship. Moreover, when there was no contract entered to cover the risk of unauthorised passenger, it goes without saying that although the first respondent claimed that he was working as a Loadman in the vehicle owned by the second respondent on the date of the accident, as there was no coverage taken on the Loadman of the vehicle belonging to the second respondent from the appellant, the

lower authority ought not to have entertained the claim petition. Adding further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower authority failed to note that the burden is on the first respondent to prove that the alleged injuries were sustained by him during the course of his employment.

2. Bur this Court is not able to see any merit or justification to entertain the present appeal, for the following reasons. Mr.P.Thangaraj, the first respondent herein was employed as a Loadman of the vehicle owned by the second respondent herein. At the time of accident that took place at about 9.30 P.M., on 21.6.2011, he was travelling in the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA 01 D 4448, a lorry belonging to the second respondent and unfortunately it was hit by another lorry bearing Registration No.TNB 8356, resultantly the said Thangaraj sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Namakkal and after giving first-aid, for better treatment, he was shifted to Thangam Hospital, Namakkal, where he was admitted as an in-patient.

Therefore, the lower authority, accepting the case of the claimant that he was working as a Loadman in the vehicle owned by the second respondent on the date of accident and after the accident he was taking treatment in Government Hospital, Namakkal and subsequently at Thangam Hospital, Namakkal as an inpatient, repelling the contention made by the appellant insurance company that there was no valid insurance coverage in respect of a loadman employed by the owner of the lorry that met with an accident, invoking Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has rightly come to the conclusion that a policy shall not be required to cover the liability in respect of bodily injury sustained by such employee arising out of and in the course of employment, if it is a goods carriage, being carried in that vehicle.

Secondly, the lower authority has awarded a reasonable compensation of Rs.4,13,381/-, without accepting the claim made by the first respondent claimant for payment of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, this Court is unable to find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.7885 of 2016 is also dismissed. Since the entire compensation has already been deposited by the appellant before the lower authority, it is open to the first respondent claimant to withdraw the amount, if he has not already withdrawn, by moving appropriate application before the lower authority.

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar ss

To

1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation / Deputy Commissioner of Labour Salem C.M.A.No.1992 of 2016 CTR(CO) MMP(22.10.2016) 29.09.2016