CMA(MD)/627/2024 of The Branch Manager Vs Asaraf Asad on 2 November 2026

J U D G M E N T

The appellant/insurance company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2020, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 20.12.2022.

2. Facts of the case:

2.1. The claimant in M.C.O.P. No.341 of 2020 was working as a driver of a Maruti car bearing Registration No.TN-49-BZ-5331, which had been insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. During the course of his employment, he met with an accident on 22.01.2020 and sustained severe injuries. He was admitted to the hospital and underwent treatment. Thereafter, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation against the owner of the vehicle against the Insurance Company.

2.2. The Insurance Company filed a counter denying the manner of the accident and disputing its liability. It was also contended that there was no employer- employee relationship between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.

C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024

2.3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 were marked. Court Documents C1 and C2 were also marked.

3. Finding of the Tribunal:

3.1. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record, fixed the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company, holding that the claimant was working as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Though the claim petition was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal, upon finding that the claimant was employed as a driver, treated the claim as one arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act and awarded a sum of Rs.19,77,595/- with interest at the rate of 7.25% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

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

4.1. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that there is absolutely no evidence to convert the claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act into a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024 Once the claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal, having rendered a finding regarding the nature of the claim, had no jurisdiction to convert the claim petition into one under the Workmen's Compensation Act and award a sum of Rs.19,77,595/- with interest at the rate of 7.25% per annum. He would further submit that the compensation awarded is also not in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned award.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant:

5.1. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that P.W.2 was examined to establish that the claimant was working as a driver and that P.W.1 had also clearly deposed regarding his employment as a driver. Their evidence was cogent and mutually corroborative. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the claimant was working as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. He would further submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was also properly calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act. Hence, no interference with the impugned award is warranted.

C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024

6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

7. Discussion and findings:

7.1. It is evident from the materials on record that the claimant was working as a workman, namely, as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. This Court carefully perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 has clearly deposed that the claimant was working as a driver and earning a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. P.W.2 has deposed that the owner of the car asked him to arrange a driver to drive the vehicle and that he had accordingly arranged the claimant to work as the driver of the car.

7.2. Though P.W.2 was subjected to cross-examination, nothing material was elicited to discredit his evidence regarding the claimant's employment as the driver of the offending vehicle. It is a well-settled principle that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and under the Employees' Compensation Act are summary in nature. When the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is cogent, corroborative and trustworthy, and no contra evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company to disprove their version, the same can safely be relied upon.

7.3. In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability upon the Insurance Company after holding that the claimant was working as the driver of the

C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024 vehicle and that the claim was maintainable under the Employees' Compensation Act. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said finding. It is also a well-settled principle, as laid down by this Court the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishnan, reported in (2003) 2 LW 73 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaliya Pillai, reported in (2002) 4 CTC 469, when this Court finds that a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable, it is the duty of the Court to consider converting the claim into one under the Employees’ Compensation Act and grant the lesser relief permissible thereunder, provided the facts establish that the claimant was employed by the owner of the vehicle and that the accident occurred in the course of such employment. In the present case, both the claimants are present before this Court. In the present case, the evidence clearly establishes that the claimant was employed as a driver by the owner of the vehicle and that the vehicle was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. Hence, this Court is inclined to concur the findings of the learned Tribunal Judge in this regard.

7.4. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the claimant was not covered under any category of the policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, cannot be accepted. The finding of the Tribunal fixing liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company does not warrant interference.

C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024

8. Result:

8.1. Accordingly, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed and confirmed the award dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai, in M.C.O.P. No.341 of 2020. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 02.11.2026 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No sbn

C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024 To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, The Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai.

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

C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J. sbn C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024 Dated: 02.11.2026