The Branch Manager vs Asaraf Asad,
- Court
- Madras High Court
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 31.08.2026
Pronounced On 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.7744 of 2024
The Branch Manager,
Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
th
No.4B, 4 Floor, 'A' Block,
Meena Complex Arcot,
Shri Thiyagaraya Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai.
... Appellant
(Cause title is accepted vide Court order dated 09.01.2024 made in C.M.P.
(MD).No.16447 of 2023 in C.M.A.(MD).Sr.No.71254 of 2023)
Vs.
1.Asaraf Asad
2.A.Kamitha Bheevi
3.A.Haja Alavudeen
4.M.Saithoon Bheevi
... Respondents
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.12.2022 made in
M.C.O.P.No.341 of 2020 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge), Pudukkottai.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:05:09 pm )
C.M.A.(MD).No.627 of 2024
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew
For Respondents : Mr.N.Balakrishnan for R1
: Dispensed with for R2 to R4
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.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:05:09 pm )
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.
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:05:09 pm )
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.
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:05:09 pm )
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
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:05:09 pm )
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, w hen
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.
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:05:09 pm )
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
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:05:09 pm )
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.
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:05:09 pm )
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
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 07:05:09 pm )