Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2547 (MAD)

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. R. Nagaraj

2014-08-12

R.SUBBIAH

body2014
Judgment : 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1, Chennai dated 25.2.2013 made in W.C.No.243 of 2010, awarding a sum of Rs.1,12,140/- as compensation to the first respondent-claimant herein. 2. The facts of this case in brief are as follows:- The case of the first respondent/claimant is that he was working as an auto driver under the second respondent and he was earning a sum of Rs.300/-per day; that on 15.6.2010, at about 6.30 A.M., while he was driving the auto bearing Registration No.TN-04-L-6727 of the second respondent, from South to North on the T.H. Road, suddenly a cow came across the road; that on seeing the cow the first respondent applied sudden brake, the auto lost its balance and thereby it dashed against the compound wall of the Municipality Office at Thiruvottriyur and thus the said auto met with an accident. 3. The first respondent sustained fracture on his right forearm and severe injury below his belly and thereby the first respondent sustained injuries all over the body. The first respondent took treatment in the Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai as inpatient from 15.6.2010 to 18.6.2010. Thereafter, he had continued his treatment as outpatient. Since the accident had occurred during the course of employment, he made a claim petition under Section 10(2) of the Workmen Compensation Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai as against his employer/owner of the vehicle, the second respondent herein and its insurer, the appellant herein. 4. The Insurance Company filed a counter statement stating that on the date of the accident viz., 15.6.2012, the insurance policy for the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-04-L-6727 stood in the name of one Mr.S.Ranganathan and not in the name of the second respondent. Hence the contract with respect to covering the risk of workmen was only between the appellant/insurance company and the said S.Ranganathan. Since there was no contract of insurance with the second respondent herein, the Insurance Company is not statutorily liable to pay the compensation amount to the first respondent/claimant. Further the case of the appellant/Insurance Company is that there was no employer and employee relationship between the first respondent and the second respondent. Therefore, the claim petition filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not maintainable and thus sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. Further the case of the appellant/Insurance Company is that there was no employer and employee relationship between the first respondent and the second respondent. Therefore, the claim petition filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not maintainable and thus sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. In order to prove the claim on the side of the first respondent claimant, he examined himself as PW-1 besides examining Dr.K.J.Mathiyazhagan and marked 9 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-9 and on the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, an official by name P.Murugesan of the Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and 3 documents were marked as Exhibits R-1 to R 3. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence, has come to a conclusion that there was a relationship of employer and employee between the first and second respondents. Thus, negativing the case projected by the appellant/Insurance Company, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,12,140/- as compensation and thus directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. Hence, aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed. 6. The counsel for the appellant relied on a judgment reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Santro Devi and Others} and submitted that as per the dictum laid down in the said judgment, once a valid contract is not entered into between the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle, the insurance company can deny their liability in paying the compensation amount. Thus the learned counsel for the appellant sought for allowing the appeal. 7. It is stated by the learned counsel for the first respondent that S.Ranganathan was the erstwhile owner of the vehicle and that the second respondent had purchased the vehicle from S.Ranganathan in the year 2009 itself and in the RC Book, the name transfer was effected in the year 2009 i.e., on 17.12.2009. Hence, as on the date of accident i.e., on 15.6.2010, the second respondent alone is the owner of the vehicle. Hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Therefore, no infirmity could be laid in the order passed by the authority below. 8. I have heard the submissions on both sides and gone through the affidavit, counter affidavit, documents, judgments relied upon by them and other materials on record. Hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Therefore, no infirmity could be laid in the order passed by the authority below. 8. I have heard the submissions on both sides and gone through the affidavit, counter affidavit, documents, judgments relied upon by them and other materials on record. It is clear that on the date of accident, the insurance policy of the vehicle was standing in the name of one S.Ranganathan and not in the name of the second respondent. But the R.C.Book marked on the side of the first respondent as exhibit P-3 would show that the second respondent had purchased the vehicle much earlier to the date of accident and the only policy of insurance was not transferred in the name of the second respondent from the name of S.Ranganathan. As per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, when the vehicle was transferred to the name of another person, the policy also is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the vehicle is transferred. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the authority below in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount since the evidence available on record would show that the vehicle was transferred in the name of the second respondent from S.Ranganathan as early as in the year 2009, and hence as per Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is a deemed transfer of policy in favour of the second respondent. Further, in this case, the policy was transferred in the name of the second respondent on 16.6.2010. Hence, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant reported in, cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, absolutely I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the authority below. 9. Hence, in the result, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the award passed by the authority below and the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Hence, the respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount by making necessary application before the Court below. No costs. Consequently, connected MP Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2013 are also dismissed.