Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs M.Karuppaiah, & Ors.

New India Assurance Company Limited, is on appeal challenging the award dated 19.1.2006 made in WC No.308 of 2004 on the file of

Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul.

The case of the first respondent is that he was working as a loadman for the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 67-A - 3435 belonging to the

second respondent herein. When he was engaged in loading and unloading in the godown belonging to the third respondent herein, the rice sack

bags fell on him causing fractures in his left ankle. He was an inpatient in Dindigul Government Hospital from 18.2.2004 till 15.03.2004. He

underwent surgery on 02.03.2004. He underwent a second surgery also. In this regard Crime No.553 of 2004 was registered on the file of the

Dindigul Police Station. He sought compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. The petition was opposed by the Insurance Company. The Deputy

Commissioner of Labour allowed WC No.308 2004 filed by the first respondent herein and directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.

1,32,722/- with 12% interest. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed by the insurance company.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. The Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner after

going through the evidence on record viz., Exs.P1 to P13 and the deposition of witnesses including PW1 and PW2 and DW1 and Ex.R1 came to

the conclusion that the first respondent herein was a workman under the second respondent herein and worked as loadman in the lorry which was

insured with the appellant corporation. The authority specifically noted that the appellant corporation has not adduced any contra evidence to

doubt the veracity of the case projected by the workman. The figure of Rs. 3,481/- as monthly wages is as per the Minimum Wages Act. The

compensation of Rs.1,32,722/- was awarded after applying the statutory formula. The appellant has not made out any case for interfering with the

said order.

This court has framed four substantial questions of law which are found in the Memorandum of Appeal. The first one is whether the insurer can

be made liable when the vehicle insured with it was not involved in the accident. The Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner had given a finding

that the insured vehicle was actually involved in the accident. This is a pure question of fact.

The second substantial question of law is whether the award is sustainable when the injury sustained by the claimant is not by the use of the

vehicle in question. It is relevant to note here that the claimant is a loadman. When an accident occurs during loading and unloading the insurer is

certainly liable in view of the terms of the policy. The vehicle need not be actually in motion. Since the goods were being loaded into the vehicle,

the vehicle was involved in that sense. The authority had considered the evidence of RW1 and only thereafter passed the award. The authority was

also justified in awarding default interest. Thus, all the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal are answered against the appellant. This

appeal is therefore dismissed with cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.