1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.08.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.M.A(MD)No.752 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 National Insurance Company Ltd, rep.by its Branch Manager Tiruchirapalli. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.Ramasamy 2.Minor Sathish Kumar 3.Minor Vijayakumar 4.Minor Rajeswari 5.Minor Kanaga 6.Kaliyammal .. Respondents/Petitioners 7.V.Kannaiyan .. Respondent/1st Respondent Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act against the award dated 22.09.2010 passed in W.C.No.124 of 2006 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli. For Appellant : Mr.R.Srinivasan For RR – 1 to 5 : Mr.J.Anandkumar For R – 7 : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan For R – 6 : No appearance JUDGMENT The award dated 22.09.2010 passed in W.C.No.124 of 2006 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli is being challenged in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The respondents 1 to 6 herein as petitioners have filed W.C.No.124 of 2006 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli praying to pass an award of Rs.6,00,000/-, wherein the present appellant has been shown as second respondent. 3. It is stated in the petition that on 19.01.2006 the deceased Veerammal has served in the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-B-0577 and the same has met with an accident. The lorry which caused the accident has been insured with the second respondent. Under the said circumstances the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 4. In the counter filed on the side of the second respondent it is stated that the policy in question does not stand in the name of the first respondent and further the deceased has not been covered in the policy and there is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the rival evidence adduced on either side, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,91,311/-. Against the liability fixed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second respondent as appellant. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second respondent has attacked the award in question on the following grounds: (a) It is an admitted fact that the vehicle which involved in the accident has been insured with the second respondent. But the first respondent is not the insured and therefore, the entire award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour is liable to be set aside. (b) Since premium has not been paid for workmen, the petitioners are not entitled to get compensation. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6/petitioners has contended that on the side of the petitioners enormous documents have been filed so as to prove that the policy in question has covered workmen and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli after considering the rival evidence adduced on either side has rightly awarded the compensation in question and therefore, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. It is an admitted fact that the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-45-B-0577 has involved in accident and due to accident, the deceased viz. Veerammal has passed away. 9. The first and foremost ground urged on the side of the appellant/second respondent is that even though the lorry which involved in the accident has been insured with the second respondent, the concerned policy does not stand in the name of the first respondent. 10. Considering the fact that the vehicle which involved in the accident has been insured with the second respondent, the second respondent is liable to pay compensation and therefore, the first and foremost contention urged on the side of the appellant/second respondent cannot be accepted. 11. The second contention urged on the side of the appellant is that the policy in question has not covered workmen and therefore, the entire award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli is liable to be set aside. 12. The policy in question has been marked as Ex.P3 and this Court has perused the terms and conditions mentioned therein and ultimately found that Ex.P3 has covered workmen and therefore, the second ground urged on the side of the appellant also goes out without merit. 13. On the side of the appellant there is no grudge with regard to quantum of compensation. Since no attack has been made with regard to quantum of compensation, the entire award passed by the Deputy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli is liable to be confirmed and altogether the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed and the award passed in W.C.No.124 of 2006 by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli is confirmed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(Writs) /TRUE COPY/ Assistant Registrar To The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tiruchirapalli. +1cc to Mr.R.Srinivasam, Advocate SR.No.25930 +1cc to Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan, Advocate SR.No.25351 C.M.A(MD)No.752 of 2011 01.08.2011 mj PA/10.08.2011/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/