Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3498 (MAD)

Anuradha v. M. Mohammed Ismail

2018-10-04

V.M.VELUMANI

body2018
JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to set aside the dismissal of the claim petition in W.C.No.210 of 2005 dated 08.12.2006 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, (Workmen Compensation), Trichy. 2. The appellants are claimants in W.C.No.210 of 2005, claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) as compensation for the death of one Ayyappan in the accident took place on 02.01.2005. The appellants are the legal heirs of the said Ayyappan. 3. According to the appellants, the said Ayyappan was working as load man under the first respondent. On 02.01.2005, after the said Ayyappan and other load men loaded logs in a lorry bearing Registration No. TDV 2099, before the said Ayyappan got into the lorry, the driver has suddenly started the lorry and the logs fell on the said Ayyappan and he died on the way to hospital. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry, belonging to the first respondent, while, the said Ayyappan employed by the first respondent. The lorry was insured with the second respondent and both the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation. 4. The first respondent herein remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 5. The second respondent filed counter statement before the Tribunal and denied the accident itself and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent. The logs loaded in the lorry loosened before tied up and fell on the ground. The other load men escaped, as they left the place immediately. The deceased was careless and sustained only simple injuries and he contended that the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Before the Commissioner, the first appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and filed 7 documents and the same were marked as Exs.A1 to A7. The second respondent did not let in any oral and documentary evidence. The Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that from the policy it is seen that the owner of the lorry was shown as Mrs. Chinnammal and the appellants have stated that the lorry belonging to the first respondent. 7. Against the said order of the Commissioner, the appellants have come out with the present appeal. 8. The Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that from the policy it is seen that the owner of the lorry was shown as Mrs. Chinnammal and the appellants have stated that the lorry belonging to the first respondent. 7. Against the said order of the Commissioner, the appellants have come out with the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the insurance policy is in respect of vehicle and not in respect of owner of the vehicle. At the time of accident, the vehicle was in possession of the first respondent and the deceased was working under the first respondent and he died during and in the course of employment under the first respondent. The Commissioner has dismissed W.C.No.210 of 2005 without appreciating the facts of the case, which amounts to non-application of mind. 9. Though the first respondent has entered appearance through Advocate, there is no representation at the time of hearing. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the lorry insured with the second respondent did not belong to the first respondent, one Chinnammal is the owner of the lorry and insurance policy is in her name. The appellants have not pleaded that the deceased was employed by Chinnammal and died during and in the course of the employment under the Chinnammal. 11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the second respondent and perused the materials available on record. 12. From the materials on record, it is seen that the deceased died during and in the course of employment under the first respondent. The respondents have admitted that the deceased sustained injuries when the logs fell on him. The Commissioner dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the policy was in the name of one Chinnammal and the appellants contended that the lorry belonged to the first respondent. The reasoning of the dismissal of the Commissioner is erroneous. The first respondent has not denied that the deceased was employed by him as loadman and that the logs were loaded in the lorry by his employees. The second respondent did not let in any evidence to show that the lorry in question was not in possession of the first respondent and the deceased did not work under the first respondent. The second respondent did not let in any evidence to show that the lorry in question was not in possession of the first respondent and the deceased did not work under the first respondent. It is admitted that the logs from the lorry insured with the second respondent fell on the deceased and due to the injuries sustained by the said Ayyappan, he died. 13. For the above reasons, I hold that the deceased died during and in the course of employment under the first respondent, while he was working in the lorry insured with the second respondent and the second respondent insurer of the lorry is also liable to pay compensation along with the first respondent for the death of the deceased. 14. For the above reasons, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants. The order of the Commissioner is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for consideration only to decide with regard to the compensation payable to the appellants for the death of the said Ayyappan. The quantum of compensation so fixed by the Commissioner shall be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. 15. With the above direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.