Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 592 (MAD)

Ramalingam v. Manager, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd

2018-02-14

A.M.BASHEER AHAMED

body2018
JUDGMENT : A.M. Basheer Ahamed, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order and decree, dated 15.12.2011, in W.C.No.295 of 2007, passed by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul. 2. The appellant herein is the claimant/petitioner in W.C.No.295 of 2007, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, camp at Karur and the first respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle/Fiat Uno Car, bearing Registration No.TN-27-K-5518 and the 2nd respondent is admittedly the insurer of the above said car, during the date of accident, which occurred on 23.09.2007. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the appellant/petitioner was under employment of R1 and was driving the above said car. The said car unfortunately dashed with a tree and as a result of which, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in his right eye and face and also over all body and in view of the accident, the petitioner has lost his right side eye and he was permanently disabled and hence, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. 4. The vehicle owner/R1 was set ex-parte before the Competent Authority/Deputy Commissioner of Labour and also in this appeal. The 2nd respondent/insurer alone contested the case by filing a counter before the Authority. After hearing both parties and the evidence adduced by the claimant, the Competent Authority/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, dismissed the claim of the appellant herein holding that the appellant/claimant was sustained injuries in the accident when he was not in the course of employment under the first respondent and he sustained injuries on his own accord. 5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant/claimant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/insurer would contend that the appellant has not working before the first respondent and also the injuries sustained by the appellant was not arising out of his employment under the first respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the appellant/claimant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/insurer would contend that the appellant has not working before the first respondent and also the injuries sustained by the appellant was not arising out of his employment under the first respondent. On perusal of the records, the petitioner got Ex.A8/Licence for LMV Non-transport vehicle, issued on 22.09.2006 and it is valid upto 15.04.2011 and the Insurance Policy/Ex.A6 was issued in the name of the first respondent, for the period from 15.02.2007 to 14.02.2008 in respect of the vehicle/Car, bearing Registration No.TN-27-K-5518 and the accident occurred 23.09.2007 and the said Insurance Policy was in force on the date of the accident. Xerox copy of the certificate of registration for the above said vehicle was produced as Ex.A5, which was transferred to the first respondent with effect from 27.12.2001 and hence, the first respondent is the owner of the vehicle even on the date of accident. 7. Appellant/claimant did not prove the fact by filing any documents to show that he was working as a driver under the employment of the first respondent and he was drawing a salary of Rs.6000/- per month, even at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent contended in his counter that the first respondent is in active collusion with the petitioner in respect of the claim of compensation. The first respondent did not contest the claim before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul and also in this appeal and he was set ex-partie. No evidence was produced, except the oral evidence of P.W.1, to show that he was under the employment of R1 and the accident took place in the course of employment of the first respondent. 8. Appellant/claimant relied Ex.A1/FIR registered on the basis of the statement obtained on 26.01.2007 from one Angamuthu/Astrologist, while he was under treatment in a private hospital viz., Ganga Hospital at Coimbatore alleging the manner of the accident in which the informant and also the petitioner/claimant were injured due to the accident as per FIR. 8. Appellant/claimant relied Ex.A1/FIR registered on the basis of the statement obtained on 26.01.2007 from one Angamuthu/Astrologist, while he was under treatment in a private hospital viz., Ganga Hospital at Coimbatore alleging the manner of the accident in which the informant and also the petitioner/claimant were injured due to the accident as per FIR. It is alleged that the informant was asked to come to Paramathi Velur over phone, by the claimant, to see Horoscope of his son and both the informants and the appellant/claimant, who was waiting with the vehicle viz., Fiat Uno Car, bearing Registration No.TN-27-K-5518 at Velur bus stand and took the informant in the above vehicle and the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant/claimant and both of them sustained severe injuries and were admitted in 'Amaravathi Hospital' at Karur, at the first instance. The above facts are admitted by the petitioner/P.W.1 during his cross-examination before the Competent Authority, but the above facts were suppressed in the claim petition and also in the proof affidavit filed by the appellant/claimant. 9. On perusal of the claim petition filed by the appellant before the concerned authority, the appellant/claimant has not pleaded that the accident occurred and the claimant sustained injuries only in the course of employment under the first respondent herein. Since there is no pleadings in the claim petition stating that the accident had occurred in the course of employment and also there is no proof or evidence to show that he was working under the first respondent on the date of accident and also that the claimant sustained injuries in the course of employment under the first respondent, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal of his claim petition by the Competent Authority/Deputy Commissioner of Loabour, Dindigul, passed in W.C.No.295/2007. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also on perusal of the impugned order of dismissal, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order, dated 15.12.2011, in W.C.No.295 of 2007, passed by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Dindigul. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.