CMA(MD)/372/2020 of THE MANAGER Vs VAIRAVAN on 2 November 2026

J U D G M E N T

The fourth respondent in E.C. No. 19 of 2013, on the file of the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD).No. 372 of 2020, challenging the award dated 29.05.2020 passed in the said claim petition.

2. Facts

of

the

case:

2.1. The claimants in E.C. No. 19 of 2013 are the dependants of the deceased Kathiravan. The deceased was employed as a compressor drill operator in the stone quarry operated by the first respondent under the Company

namely “Godwin Blue Metals”. On 10.11.2012, while the deceased was engaged in drilling operations in the quarry, a stone fell on him, resulting in his death.

2.2. At the time of the occurrence, the tractor bearing Registration No. TN 33 R 4974, fitted with a compressor and used for drilling operations, was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. The dependants initially instituted the claim proceedings against the owner of the quarry without impleading the Insurance Company. Subsequently, the appellant Insurance Company was impleaded as a party to the proceedings.

2.3. The appellant Insurance Company filed its counter disputing its liability under the policy. Its principal contention was that the vehicle had been registered and insured for agricultural purposes but had been used for commercial purposes in a stone quarry. It was further contended that the accident occurred during quarrying operations and that the policy did not cover the risk arising from the use of the vehicle for such commercial purpose. The Insurance Company also disputed the employer–employee relationship between the deceased and the third respondent, the quantum of compensation claimed and

its

liability

to

indemnify

the

insured.

2.4. The third respondent, the owner of the vehicle, filed a counter admitting the employer–employee relationship between himself and the

deceased. It was contended that a valid insurance policy was in force on the date of the occurrence and that, in view of the coverage under the policy, the appellant Insurance Company was liable to satisfy the compensation awarded to the claimants.

3. Findings

of

the

Tribunal:

3.1. The learned Joint Commissioner of Labour, upon considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, including the claimants’ exhibits P1 to P6 and the respondents’ exhibits R1 to R7, accepted the claimants’ case. The authority held that the employer–employee relationship between deceased and owner of vehicle namely third respondent had been established, that the death occurred in the course of employment and that the policy contained a specific reference to the payment of premium in respect of the relevant employment risk. Accordingly, liability was fastened upon the appellant Insurance Company by the award dated 29.05.2020 and a total compesation of Rs.8,90,480/- along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident, was awarded under the following heads:- Sl.No. Heads Amounts in Rs.

Loss of dependency 8,85,480/-

Funeral Expenses 5,000/- Total Compensation Awarded Rs.8,90,480/-

3.2. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. Substantial Question of Law “1. Whether the learned commissioner was erred in ordering the appellant to pay the compensation to the claimants.

2. Whether the Commissioner is correct in holding that the deceased Kathiravan was employed under the 5th respondent as the drilling machine operator.

3. Whether the findings given by the Commissioner which is against the pleadings and evidence is sustainable in law.

4. Whether the learned Commissioner is correct in ordering the appellant to pay the compensation even after holding that there was no insurance cover for the drilling machine and drilling machine operator.

5. Whether the appellant insurance company can be directed to pay the compensation even without coverage in the insurance policy for the drilling machine and drilling machine operator.

6. Whether the Commissioner has failed to decide the issue in

respect of nexus between the accident and tractor bearing registration No.TN-33-R-4974.

7. Whether the Commissioner is erred in ordering the appellant to pay the compensation without any liability.

8. Whether the Commissioner has got power to go beyond the terms of insurance policy and direct the appellant insurance company to pay the compensation.”

4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company:

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company vehemently contended that the insured vehicle was a tractor intended for agricultural purposes but had been put to use for business operation and commercial purpose in a stone quarry. According to the learned counsel, such use fell outside the scope of the insurance policy and, therefore, the appellant could not be made liable to pay compensation.

4.2. It was further contended that no additional premium had been paid to cover the risk of the deceased as a compressor drill operator. The appellant also disputed the existence of an employer–employee relationship between the deceased and the third respondent. It was submitted that the claim was initially instituted against the owner of the quarry alone and that the subsequent

impleadment of the Insurance Company could not, by itself, create any contractual or statutory liability on its part. According to the appellant, the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour had failed to properly appreciate the terms of the policy and the evidence on record, resulting in the erroneous fastening of liability upon the Insurance Company. On these grounds, the learned counsel sought interference with the impugned award.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4

&

5:

5.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the employer–employee relationship had been established not only through the evidence of an independent witness but also through the admission of the third respondent, who had categorically stated that the deceased was employed as a compressor drill operator in the quarry.

5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the policy itself described the insured vehicle as a tractor fitted with a compressor. The compressor was intended for use in drilling operations, and the deceased was engaged in operating the drilling equipment rather than travelling as an unauthorised or gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the risk in question could not be equated with that of an uncovered passenger.

5.3. It was also contended that the policy evidenced payment of premium

towards the relevant categories of personnel, including the paid driver, conductor and cleaner, and that the endorsement under IMT 28 had to be considered while determining the extent of coverage. According to the learned counsel, the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour had correctly appreciated the nature of the insured vehicle, the purpose for which the compressor it was equipped and the terms of the policy. Hence, the award fastening liability upon the Insurance Company did not warrant interference.

5.4. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle, adopted the above submissions and contended that, in view of a valid policy and the payment applicable premium, the Insurance Company could not avoid its liability contrary to the terms of the contract of insurance.

6. Discussion

and

findings:

6.1. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, including the insurance policy marked as Ex.R8.

6.2. A perusal of Ex.R8 discloses that the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 33 R 4974 was described in the policy as a tractor fitted with a compressor. The nature and configuration of the insured vehicle, therefore, assume significance in determining the scope of the insurance coverage. The dispute cannot be resolved merely by referring to the description of the vehicle as a tractor, without examining the compressor fitted to it, the purpose for which the

equipment was intended to be used and the relevant terms and endorsements of the policy.

6.3. The evidence of R.W.2, read with the evidence of R.W.1, the owner of the vehicle, establishes that the vehicle was fitted with a compressor and was used for drilling operations in the stone quarry. R.W.1 has categorically stated that the deceased was employed as a compressor drill operator. The said evidence, together with the admission of the owner and the other materials on record, establishes the employer–employee relationship between the deceased and

the

RW1

(Vincent

Jeyabalan).

6.4. The circumstances in which the accident occurred also establish that the deceased sustained the fatal injury while engaged in the drilling operation entrusted to him in the course of his employment. The fact that the accident occurred within the quarry premises, during the operation for which the deceased had been employed, supports the finding that the death arose out of and

in

the

course

of

employment.

6.5. The principal objection of the appellant is that the vehicle was insured for agricultural purposes but was used for commercial purposes in the quarry. However, the description of the insured vehicle in Ex.R8 as a tractor fitted with a compressor must be considered in conjunction with the actual configuration of the vehicle and the relevant policy terms. The compressor was the equipment

used for drilling operations, and the deceased was employed to operate that equipment. In these circumstances, the appellant's objection cannot be accepted merely on the basis of the description of the vehicle as a tractor, without establishing that the use in question was excluded by the operative terms of the policy.

6.6. Equally, the question of premium cannot be decided in the abstract. The policy and its endorsements must be read as a whole to ascertain the nature and extent of the risk covered. The contention regarding the absence of additional premium for the deceased as a compressor drill operator must, therefore, be examined with reference to the relevant premium entries and the applicability of IMT 28. The payment of premium for other categories of personnel, by itself, would not automatically establish coverage for every category of employee. Nevertheless, where the policy, read as a whole, covers the relevant employment risk, the insurer cannot avoid liability by isolating a single entry from the remaining terms of the contract. Similar issue was raised before this Court in C.M.A(MD).No.978 of 2013 and the Honourable Judge of this Court after considering the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court reported 2010 (2) TN MAC 554 (The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. K.Pavayee and another) held against the Insurance Company and the relevant paragraphs as follows:

“17. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has relied upon the judgment in 2022 1 TNMAC – 145 (M/s.Mangilal Vishnoi vs. National Insurance Company limited) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Paragraph No.8 as follows: “8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the High Court has accepted appeal on a make-believe argument that Cleaner or Helper engaged by the employer are engaged in two different duties and that a Helper is not covered by the insurance policy. The High Court has recorded a finding that admittedly deceased was a Helper. In the absence of any clear demarcation of duties of a Helper or a Cleaner and in view of the fact that Helper and Cleaner are interchangeably used, therefore, declining claim for the reason that deceased was engaged as a helper and not Cleaner is wholly unjustified. Additionally, the employer sought indemnification of five other employees engaged in loading or unloading activities by paying extra premium. It was for the insurance company to cross examine the witnesses produced by the claimant or by the owner to prove the fact that deceased was not engaged in loading or unloading activities. We find that the High Court has drawn a distinction between Helper and a Cleaner when none existed.”

18. On careful perusal of the judgment, it is clear that in the absence of any clear demarcation of duties of a Helper or a Cleaner and in view of the fact that Helper and Cleaner are interchangeably used, declining claim for the reason that deceased was engaged as a helper and not Cleaner is wholly unjustified. In the case on hand, the purpose of vehicle is mentioned and the policy also issued as special type of vehicle and therefore, the policy is covered.

19. Further, in this context, the respondents' side evidence witness also admitted that at the time of issuing policy, they inspected the vehicle and in the RC Book itself, the purpose and use is also clearly mentioned and also admitted that the first respondent is permitted to use the explosive substances and the policy also mentioned in the Miscellaneous and the special type of vehicle policy -A liability only. Therefore, the policy is covered for the petitioner. Thus the substantial question of law is answered.”

6.7. In the present case, the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour considered the evidence regarding the nature of the vehicle, the employment of the deceased and the circumstances of the occurrence, and recorded a finding that the death took place in the course of employment. The appellant has not established a sufficient ground for disturbing the said finding. The fact that the Insurance Company was impleaded subsequently is also not, by itself, a ground for exoneration, provided that its liability is otherwise established under the policy and the applicable law.

7. Conclusion:

7.1. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour regarding the employer–employee relationship and the occurrence of the accident in the course of employment.

7.2. This Court further finds no infirmity in the determination of compensation by the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The monthly income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.8,000/-, and the appropriate factor was adopted for computing the compensation in accordance with the statutory formula. The compensation of Rs.8,90,480/- awarded by the aforesaid authority, together with interest from the date of the accident in accordance with the applicable principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, does not warrant interference in this appeal.

7.3. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company. The question of law framed at the time of admission is answered against the appellant. The award passed by the learned Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, in E.C. No.

of

2013,

dated

29.05.2020,

is

confirmed.

8. Result:

8.1. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, and the award dated 29.05.2020 passed in E.C. No. 19 of 2013 by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli, is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

02.11.2026

NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No aas To

1. The Joint Commissioner of Labour,

Tirunelveli.

2. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. aas C.M.A.(MD).No.372 of 2020