At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
For the Appellant: N. Manokaran, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2, C. Sangamithirai, Advocate, R1, No appearance.
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925 to set aside the order dated 25.06.2012 (served on 27.08.2012) made in W.C. No. 246 of 2007 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour / Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Court Salem.)1. The award passed in W.C. No. 246 of 2007 dated 25.06.2012 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.2. The appellant filed claim petition stating that he was working as a Load Man and Coolie for a daily wages of Rs.200/- per day in the Mini door van bearing Registration No. TN-33-AB-0800 belongs to the M/s.Veerappan Traders / first respondent. On 08.03.2007, at about 2.30 p.m., the appellant / claimant as a Load Man and Coolie worker, after unloading SPM Powder in Manickampalayam H.U from Mini door van bearing Registration No. TN-33-AB-0800, was returned back to Periyavalasu Junction from south to north. The driver of the Mini door van one Sirajdin had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle had capsized and the appellant sustained grievous injuries, the claim petition was filed.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem adjudicated the issues on merits and made a findings that as per the FIR, the appellant / claimant was not an employee with the first respondent and further he was traveling in the Mini door van and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.4. It is relevant to consider the report filed with reference to the accident which reads thus:“TAMIL”5. The appellant/claimant has not established that he was an employee of the first respondent/Veerappan Traders. The accident occurred, while the appellant was travelling in the Mini Door. However, it is to be established that the appellant is the employee of the first respondent/Veerappan Traders, then only, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as per the policy. As per the F.I.R, the appellant was an unauthorised passenger in the vehicle which met with an accident. Thus, the liability cannot be fixed on the Insurance Company to pay compensation in respect of the unauthorised passengers, as per the terms and conditions. Mere travelling in the vehicle which met with an accident is insufficient. To meet the requirements under the statute, the employer/employee relationship is to be established and the coverage in the Insurance Policy is also to be proved. In order to avail the benefit of the Insurance Policy, the appellant made an attempt to establish that he is an employee of the first respondent/Veerappan traders. However, the appellant has not established the same by filing an acceptable evidence or proof. Thus, the findings of the D
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
eputy Commissioner of Labour in this regard is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and in accordance with established principles of law. Accordingly, the award dated 25.06.2012 passed in W.C.No.246 of 2007 stands confirmed and consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.