Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 5028 (MAD)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ragunathan

2010-11-12

R.SUBBIAH

body2010
Judgment :- 1. The order date 10.9.2009 passed in W.C. No.255 of 2007 by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I) at Chennai, is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The 1st Respondent herein as Petitioner has filed W.C.No.225 of 2007 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I) at Chennai, praying to pass an award in his favour, stating that he was working as an auto driver under the 2nd Respondent on a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- and daily batta of Rs.50/- and on 28.1.2006 at about 19.30 hours, while he was driving the Auto the bearing registration No.TN-07-F-2797 from south to north direction at Kamarajar Salai nearby the fair exhibition at Kamarajar Salai, a pedestrian suddenly crossed the road and in order to avert the accident, he applied the sudden brake, but the auto was skidded and capsized on the right side. Consequently, the 1st Respondent sustained grievous injuries and hence, he made a Claim as against the owner of the auto i.e. employer (2nd Respondent herein) and the Insurer of the Auto, the Appellant herein. 3. The claim of the 1st Respondent was resisted by the Appellant – Insurance Company stating that injured has not sustained injuries during the course of his employment under the 2nd Respondent and thereby denied their liability to pay the compensation. In order to prove the claim, on the side of the Claimant, he examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining one Dr. Thiyagarajan as P.W.2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and on the side of the Appellant-Insurance Company, no evidence was adduced. The authority below, after analysing the entire evidence, has awarded a sum of Rs.1,33,481/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the same. Aggrieved over the same, the present Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 4. At the time of admission, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (a) Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in not appreciating that the Claimant had not proved that he had sustained injuries in the course of employment on 28.1.2006? (b) Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in not following the Schedule I of W.C. Act to assess the alleged permanent disability especially when the Claimant had not sustained serious injuries? (c) Whether the Award of the learned Commissioner is liable to be set aside or modified? 5. (b) Whether the learned Commissioner has erred in not following the Schedule I of W.C. Act to assess the alleged permanent disability especially when the Claimant had not sustained serious injuries? (c) Whether the Award of the learned Commissioner is liable to be set aside or modified? 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that though the accident took place on 28.1.2006, no Complaint was preferred in this case. Moreover, the Claimant was admitted in the hospital only on 2.2.2006. Therefore, it is highly doubtful as to whether the 1st Respondent had sustained any injury during the course of his employment. But, the Authority below, without considering these facts properly, has awarded the amount and under such circumstances, the award is liable to be set aside. 6. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Claimant submitted that though no Complaint was filed, in the Wound Certificate, marked as Ex.P4, the accident was referred to. Moreover, the owner of the Auto filed a Counter before the authority below, admitting the accident. Under such circumstances, no infirmity could be found in the award passed by the Authority below. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. After perusing the entire materials on record, I find that it is the specific case of the 1st Respondent/Claimant that while he was working under the 2nd Respondent, he met with the accident on 28.1.2006 at Kamarajar Salai during his employment and as such, he is eligible for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Per contra, it is the defence of the Insurance Company that had the accident been true, the 1st Respondent would have lodged a Complaint on that day itself. But, in the instant case, no First Information Report was filed as a document before the Authority below. Therefore, the Claim made by the 1st Respondent sought to have been dismissed by the Authority below. 9. It is to be pointed out that the vehicle owner himself has filed a Counter admitting the accident. Moreover, the Wound Certificate issued by the Hospital Authorities also confirmed the accident that taken place on 28.1.2006. Moreover, I find that on the side of the Appellant-Insurance Company, no contra evidence was adduced in this regard. Considering all these aspects, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Authority below. Moreover, the Wound Certificate issued by the Hospital Authorities also confirmed the accident that taken place on 28.1.2006. Moreover, I find that on the side of the Appellant-Insurance Company, no contra evidence was adduced in this regard. Considering all these aspects, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Authority below. Moreover, all the issues raised in the Appeal are only question of law. Under such circumstances, I see no valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the Authority below. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, Connected M.Ps. are closed.