Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3117 (MAD)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Palaniammal

2018-09-20

S.RAMATHILAGAM

body2018
JUDGMENT S. Ramathilagam, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the award made in W.C.No.387 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Court/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem, dated 16.10.2009. 2. The appellant herein is the National Insurance Company, who is the second opposite party in the claim application. 3. The brief facts of the claim application is that the claimant was a cooli employee under the first respondent for the purpose of taking the sugarcane crops to the respondent's factory. He had been working under the first respondent for nearly seven years. On 27.06.2014, while the sugarcane load was taken to the first respondent's factory, the claimant was sitting front side of the sugarcane load, which had fallen on him and in turn, he had fallen from the tractor and the wheel of the tractor ran over the him and he sustained several injuries all over the body. The claimant was also given treatment for the said injuries. A criminal case also registered in Jadarpalayam Police Station. It is the averment of the claimant that he was 25 years at the time of accident and his monthly income was Rs. 4,000/- and the disability, which he sustained is also 100% and therefore, he claimed a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation. 4. The first respondent has stated that in the counter statement that there is no employer relationship between the claimant and himself and there is no occurrence happened as stated by the claimant. When the tractor was proceeding in the road; the claimant, who was standing in the road with his child all a sudden crossed the road and the tractor driven by the first respondent was stopped immediately and the tractor never dashed against the claimant and hence, the entire fact stated by the claimant was totally denied by the first respondent. Whereas, the second respondent/Insurance Company in his counter statement has stated that the details furnished by the claimant regarding monthly earning, details of injury, period of treatment and the disability has been denied and further the employment of the claimant was also denied by the second respondent. Whereas, the second respondent/Insurance Company in his counter statement has stated that the details furnished by the claimant regarding monthly earning, details of injury, period of treatment and the disability has been denied and further the employment of the claimant was also denied by the second respondent. The second respondent has also stated the seating capacity of the tractor is only one and the claimant along with another lady as an unauthorized by seating in the mug card and as such the second respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The First Information Report registered by the Police would also reveal the fact that the claimant was travelling in the mug card of the tractor. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,35,911/- as compensation, after analyzing the evidence and also documents filed by the claimant. Aggrieved against the award, the appellant preferred this appeal. 5. From perusal of the records, it is observed that the tribunal apart from examining the claimant and the contents of the First Information Report was also observed. The facts in the First Information Report states that one Palaniappan has given a statement that while Subramani S/o. Valliyappan was driving his tractor with the sugarcane load and at that time, the claimants/Palaniammal and Palaniappan were also taken in the said tractor and at that time the sugarcane load slotted on the claimant Palaiammal. Palaniammal had fallen from the tractor and the wheel of the tractor ran over her and she was further tracked to some distance and she sustained injuries and she was also given treatment. Hence, it was clearly proved by the FIR that the claimant was travelling in the tractor on 27.06.2004. The further fact is that the claimant was travelling in the tractor, which is owned by the first respondent with the sugarcane load. Hence, it is observed by the tribunal that unless she was permitted to travel in the tractor with sugarcane load, which was not denied by the first respondent. It is proved that the claimant sustained injuries at the time, when she was engaged under the first respondent for taking sugarcane in the tractor. Hence, it is observed by the tribunal that unless she was permitted to travel in the tractor with sugarcane load, which was not denied by the first respondent. It is proved that the claimant sustained injuries at the time, when she was engaged under the first respondent for taking sugarcane in the tractor. Hence, the findings of the tribunal is that the claimant sustained injuries, while, she was under employment of the first respondent and further the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and also the disability had been assisted by P.W.2/Doctor and also assisted by the tribunal. 6. Regarding the arguments advanced by the appellant/Insurance Company, regarding liability, the Police Ex.R1 was pursued, which reveals that the seating capacity of the tractor is only one, whereas on that day, three persons were travelling in the said tractor. The tribunal observed that the claimant was engaged as a cooli by the first respondent. 7. In the present case, Workmen compensation to an employee, one who was collected at Rs. 25 as premium and it is also clearly observed that on the day of accident, the claimant was engaged as a cooli and also observed that the case law and provisions. 8. The second respondent's arguments are as follows: The New India Assurance Company Limited -V- Anasurya and Others, (1991) 1 ACC 168 XXX XXX XXX 9. The tribunal has also observed that Ex.P.5 is the driving licence, which was possessed by the driver on that day, hence, there is no violation on conditions and hence, the liability fixed on the second respondent was properly assessed by the tribunal. 10. Hence, the award passed by the tribunal needs no interference. With the above said discussions, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.