Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs V.Veluchamy (Died) on 4 September, 2018
Author: V.M. Velumani
Bench: V.M. Velumani
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.09.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M. VELUMANI
CMA(MD).No.835 of 2009 and 1282 of 2016 and
MP(MD).No.2 of 2009 in CMA(MD).No.835 of 2009
and CMP(MD).No.10930 of 2016 in CMA(MD).No.1282 of 2016
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Through its Divisional Office,
VE Road, Tuticorin. : Appellant in both appeals
Vs.
1.V.Veluchamy (died)
2.Revathi @ Sivanthipoo
3.Johnson, Proprietor
4.The Management,
C/o. PPM Thangaiah Nadar,
Sceena Factory,
315-316, South Cotton Road,
Tuticorin.
5.The Chairman,
Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin.
6.V.Madsamy .. Respondents in CMA(MD).No.835 of 2009
(R6 brought on record as LR's of
deceased R1 vide order dated 07.02.2013)
1.M.Senthilkumar
2.Johnson, Properitor
3.The Management,
C/o. PPM Thangaiah Nadar,
Sceena Factory,
315-316, South Cotton Road,
Tuticorin.
4.The Chairman,
Tuticorin Port Trust, Tuticorin.
.. Respondents in CMA(MD).No.1282 of 2016
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed under Section 30 of
Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Award dated 30.11.2006
passed in W.C.Nos.46 of 2003 and W.C.No.1 of 2004 on the file of the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Thirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.G. Prabhu Rajadurai
For R2 & R6 : Mr.V.Ramajegadeesan
in CMA(MD).No.835/09 sr stage
For R3 : Mr. M.P. Senthil in
CMA(MD).No.835/09
R2 in CMA(MD).No.1282/16
______
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed against the Award, dated 30.11.2006, passed in W.C.No.46 of 2003 and W.C.No. 1 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Thirunelveli.
2. The appellant / Insurance Company is the fourth respondent in W.C.No.46 of 2003 and W.C.No.1 of 2004, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Thirunelveli. The respondents 1 and 2 in CMA(MD).No. 835 / 2009 (W.C.No.46 of 2003) and the first respondent in CMA(MD).No. 1282 / 2016 (W.C.No.1 of 2004), filed http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the said claim petitions claiming a sum of Rs.3,90,438/- and Rs.3,36,750/- respectively as compensation for the injuries sustained by the first respondent in CMA(MD).No. 1282 / 2016 (W.C.No.1 of 2004) and for the death of the son of the respondents 1 and 2 viz., Periyaduari, respectively.
3. According to the respondents 1 and 2 in CMA(MD).No. 835 of 2009, their son Periyadurai was working as an employee under the 3rd respondent in the said CMA. The deceased and other employees were directed to place the asbestos sheets in the roof. Due to poor quality of asbestos sheets they fell down from the ceiling and sustained injuries and subsequently, they were taken to Government Hospital, Tuticorin, but, the said Periyadurai died, in spite of treatment. Hence, the legal heirs of the deceased filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,90,438/- as compensation. According to the first respondent in CMA(MD).No.1282 of 2016, while he was working under the same employee for carrying out the same work he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The injuries sustained are during and in the course of employment. Hence, the first respondent in CMA(MD).No.1282 of 2016 filed the said claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.3,36,750/- as compensation. http://www.judis.nic.in
4. The appellant filed counter statement and denied all 4 the averments in the petition. The appellant further contended that the Policy has been obtained by the employer suppressing the time of accident and they have to prove their claim that they were employed by him and the accident occurred during and in the course of the employment.
5. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Thirunelveli, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that accident occurred, during the victims were working in the company of the third respondent in CMA(MD).No. 835 of 2009 and second respondent in CMA(MD).No. 1282 of 2016 as employees and during the course of employment, in which, the first respondent in CMA(MD).No.1282 of 2016, sustained grievous injuries and the son of the respondents 1 and 2 in CMA(MD).No.835 of 2009, died. The Commissioner considering the nature of injuries and the death of Periyadurai, awarded a sum of Rs.93,705/ and Rs.3,36,000/- as compensation respectively.
6. Against the said Award, the appellant has come forward with the present appeals.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant 5 contended that the victims being referred as coolies are not covered under the policy and he further stated that the policy was taken only subsequent to the accident and the victims were not provided with adequate safety measures. He further contended that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), erroneously held that the appellant is liable to pay compensation instead of directing the employer to pay the compensation.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent in CMA(MD).No.835 of 2009 and the second respondent in CMA(MD).No.1282 of 2016 submitted that the accident had occurred during and in the course of his employment and hence, the appellant is liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.
9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
10. In Exs.R1 and R2, the names of the victims have been mentioned as employees and the policies had not been taken after the accident and the evidence of PW.3 proved that the accident had http://www.judis.nic.in occurred only during the Course of employment. The 6 Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Thirunelveli, rightly held that the burden is on the appellant to prove that the victims were not the employees of the the third respondent in CMA(MD).No. 835 of 2009 and second respondent in CMA(MD).No. 1282 of 2016. The appellant failed to prove that the policy was taken after the accident and that the deceased and first respondent in CMA(MD).No.1282 of 2016 were not covered by the Policy. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Thriunelveli, rightly held that the appellant alone is liable to pay compensation. There is no reason to interfere with the said finding.
11. In the result, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed by confirming the Award, dated 30.11.2006, passed in W.C.No.46 of 2003 and W.C.No.1 of 2004, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Thirunelveli. No costs.
04.09.2018 trp Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No http://www.judis.nic.in 7 To
1. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Thirunelveli.
2. The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 V.M. VELUMANI, J.
trp CMA(MD).No.835 of 2009 and 1282 of 2016 and MP(MD).No.2 of 2009 in CMA(MD).No.835 of 2009 and CMP(MD).No.10930 of 2016 in CMA(MD).No.1282 of 2016 04.09.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in