Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3238 (MAD)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Salem v. Selvi

2013-09-10

C.S.KARNAN

body2013
Judgment : 1. The applicants have filed W.C.No.19 of 2005, against the employer and the Insurance Company stating that the 1st applicant's husband Seva Gounder, was employed by the 1st opposite party as a driller, in the rig lorry bearing Registration No.MH-11-G-3900, while he was involved in the work on 20.11.2000 at about 11.00 p.m., he had sustained injuries in an accident and succumbed to it. Hence, the applicants have filed the claim against the opposite parties. 2. The Insurance Company had filed counter statement and resisted the compensation petition. The 2nd opposite party had denied that the said accident had occurred during the course of employment of the deceased under the 1st opposite party. The injuries were not sustained by the deceased while he was discharging his duty as a workman. At the time of accident, the said Seva gounder was neither doing his duty in the course of employment under the 1st opposite party nor had the accident arising out while doing his work under the 1st opposite party. 3. On verifying the averments of both parties, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had framed four issues namely: (1) Whether the deceased was working under the 1st opposite party at the time of accident? (2) What is the age and income of the deceased? (3) What is the quantum of compensation which the applicants are entitled to get? and (4) Who is liable to pay the said compensation? 4. On the side of the applicants, the 1st applicant was examined as PW1 and 9 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9 namely: Ex.P1-F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Postmortem report; Ex.P3-Charge sheet; Ex.P4-Co-employee's evidence; Ex.P5-Employer's evidence; Ex.P6-Death Certificate; Ex.P7-R.C. Copy; Ex.P8-Policy; and Ex.P9-Legal heir certificate. On the side of the 1st opposite party, no one was examined. On the side of the 2nd opposite party, Insurance Policy alone was marked. 5. PW1 had adduced evidence that her husband Seva Gounder was working under the 1st opposite party's rig lorry bearing Registration No.MH-11-G-3900, as coolie. On 20.11.2000, when he had parked the said lorry at about 11.00 p.m. on the Pune to Bombay Main road and went to answer calls to nature and at that point of time, an unknown vehicle had dashed against him. As a result, he had succumbed to his injuries. On 20.11.2000, when he had parked the said lorry at about 11.00 p.m. on the Pune to Bombay Main road and went to answer calls to nature and at that point of time, an unknown vehicle had dashed against him. As a result, he had succumbed to his injuries. She deposed that her husband was paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month by the 1st opposite party and he was aged 35 years. The other applicants are the daughter and sons of the deceased Seva Gounder. In support of her evidence, she had marked the above mentioned documents. 6. After recording evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by both parties and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour had granted a sum of Rs.2,49,774/- as compensation. Against the said compensation, the Insurance Company has filed the above appeal. 7. The highly competent counsel argued that the mode of accident described that an unknown vehicle had dashed against the deceased while he was answering the calls of nature and caused the accident. Therefore, the 1st opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation as the deceased was not involved in any work. The driller rig was parked on the National Highways and he was not working in the said driller as a coolie at the time of accident. As such, it is evident that the accident did not arise during the course of doing work under the 1st opposite party. It was submitted that the applicant and 1st opposite party had colluded with each other and filed the claim. The highly competent counsel further pointed out that the (deceased) was not working in the rig lorry and the accident had not occurred while he was carrying out any work in the rig lorry. 8. The very competent counsel for the applicants argued that the deceased was a coolie under the 1st opposite party and he had travelled in the rig lorry as a coolie, when the said lorry was in operation on the Pune-Bombay Highways, wherein there was a proposal to dig a bore-well. When the deceased was proceeding to answer the calls of nature, an unknown vehicle had hit against him. When the deceased was proceeding to answer the calls of nature, an unknown vehicle had hit against him. Therefore, at the time of accident, the deceased was under the care and custody of the 1st opposite party since the deceased was an employee under him. At the time of accident, the relationship prevailing between the deceased and 1st opposite party was as an employer and employee. The 1st opposite party's vehicle was insured with the appellant herein. Therefore, the award had been passed after considering the circumstances of the case. 9. The learned counsel for the 1st opposite party submits that the deceased was engaged as a coolie in the drilling rig lorry and the said lorry had been insured with the appellant herein. Further, the deceased was travelling in the rig lorry as a coolie, wherever it was taken to. At the time of accident, the deceased was engaged as a coolie in the said lorry and the said lorry was parked on the Pune National Highway in order to dig a bore-well. 10. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the conclusions arrived at regarding employer-employee relationship and liability of the appellant herein. This Court is of the further view that the deceased was engaged as a coolie in the driller rig of the 1st opposite party and that the accident had occurred, while he was under the care and custody of the 1st opposite party as his employee. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above appeal. 11. Now, the applicants including the minor applicants are permitted to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of W.C.No.19 of 2005, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order and after identification of the applicants by their counsel. 11. Now, the applicants including the minor applicants are permitted to withdraw their apportioned share amount, with accrued interest thereon, lying in the credit of W.C.No.19 of 2005, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, after filing a memo, along with a copy of this order and after identification of the applicants by their counsel. This Court directs the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour to deposit the minor applicants share amount, with accrued interest thereon, if any, as fixed deposit in a nationalised bank, under the Cumulative Deposit Scheme, until such time they attain the age of a major and hand over the fixed deposit certificates to the 1st applicant i.e. mother of the minors. 12. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed in W.C.No.19 of 2005, on the file of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, dated 27.03.2006, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.