Madras High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Periyaiah on 30 April, 2014
Author: K.Kalyanasundaram
Bench: K.Kalyanasundaram
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM C.M.A.(MD)No.1839 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., 66, W.B. Road, Trichy. ... Appellant/2nd Respondent -Vs- 1.Periyaiah 2.Ponnammal ... Petitioners 3.Edward Sudhakar ... First Respondent 4.T.Karuppiah ... 3rd Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 09.04.2012 passed in W.C.No.162 of 2006 on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Trichy. !For Appellant :MrG.Prabhu Rajadurai ^For Respondents :Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj :JUDGMENT
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed, challenging the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy, in W.C.No.162 of 2006 dated 09.04.2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2006 deceased Krishnan was driving a Tractor bearing Registration No. TN-48-A-2963 belonging to the 3rd respondent/employer. While so, the Tractor capsized and the driver succumbed to injuries. A case was registered by the Traffic Investigation Wing in Crime No.87 of 2006. Parents of the said Krishnan laid a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, contending that the accident had occurred during the course of employment.
3. Resisting the claim petition, the appellant filed counter affidavit, stating that there was no employer-employee relationship between the deceased Krishnan and the 3rd respondent and on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive Tractor.
4. To substantiate the case, the claimants have examined two witnesses and marked the Exs. P1 to P6. On the side of the respondents, one witness was examined and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked.
5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation held that the accident had occurred during the course of employment and awarded compensation of Rs.4,33,651/-. Challenging the award, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.
6. The appeal has been admitted on the following questions of law:-
1) Whether the Learned Commissioner is correct in law in directing the insurer to pay the compensation payable by the fourth respondent when there is no privity of contract between the insurer and the fourth respondent?
2) Whether the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is correct in law overlooking the breach of condition of policy by engaging the tractor for non agricultural purpose?
3) Whether the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is correct in law in holding that the insurer failed to prove that the driver did not have a valid driving license overlooking the notices issued to the insured under Exhibit R3 and R4 and the admitted document Exhibit P4?
7. Heard Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M.C.Ashokkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the third respondent and Mr. N.Sudhakar Nagaraj learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle was owned by the third respondent and it was transferred in the name of the 4th respondent/3rd opposite party and after the transfer, the accident had taken place; that the deceased Krishnan was an employee of the 4th respondent/3rd opposite party and there was no employer-employee relationship between the 1st opposite party and the deceased. The learned Counsel further submitted that the Insurance policy stands in the name of Edward Sudhakar and therefore, they are not liable to pay compensation.
9. The learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the claimants have proved that the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the employer died in the course of employment; that even after the transfer of the vehicle, if the insurance policy is not transferred in the name of the transferee, even then the appellant is liable to pay the award amount. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mallamma (Dead) by LRs -vs- National Insurance Company Ltd and others [2014(4) SCALE 627]
10. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle namely, the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-48-A-2963, was originally owned by Edward Sudhakar and he sold the vehicle to the fourth respondent namely T.Karuppiah on 22.11.2005 and even after the transfer of the vehicle, the policy was standing in the name of the transferor. However, the name of the transferee was not effected in the R.C book and he has not taken a new policy nor intimated the transfer to the appellant Insurance Company. It is established, when the accident had taken place on 03.03.2006, the vehicle had coverage of insurance and the driver of the vehicle died in the course of the employment.
11.In 2014 (4) SCALE 627, the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 10 has held as follows:
"10. Before us, learned Counsel for the appellants relying upon Section 157 of the M.V. Act, contended that there is an admitted transfer of ownership of the vehicle as proved before the Commissioner. Once, the ownership of the vehicle is admittedly proved to have been transferred to Jeeva Rathna Setty, the existing insurance policy in respect of the same vehicle will also be deemed to have been transferred to the new owner and the policy will not laps even if the intimation as required under Section 103 of the M.V.Act is not given to the insurer, hence the impugned order passed by the High Court is contrary to law. In support of this contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court in G.Govindan -vs- New India Assurance Co Ltd.,(1999) 3 SCC 754.
12. In the light of the above judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, I am of the view that the appellant is liable to pay the award amount to the claimants.
13. In view of my findings supra, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant and the appeal is dismissed accordingly. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount lying in the credit of W.C.No. 162 of 2006 on the file of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner of Lanour) Trichy. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
TO The Workmen Compensation Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) Trichy.