THE MANAGER vs VAIRAVAN
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On 28.09.2026
Pronounced On 02.11.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CMA(MD) NO. 372 of 2020
{CNR: HCMD010492042020}
Case QR
and
CMP(MD) NO. 4783 of 2020
{CNR: HCMD010492072020}
Case QR
and
CMP(MD) NO. 141 of 2021
{CNR: HCMD010794672020}
Case QR
The Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, 1st Floor, DDJ Center,
Opposite to Vadasery Bus Stand,
Nagercoil. ...Appellant
Vs
1.Vairavan
2.Chandra
3.Johnsly Moses (Died)
4.Godwin Moses
5.Vincent Jeyabalan
6.Fathima Moses
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
7.Ruba Moses
( Respondents 6 And 7 are brought on record as LRS of the deceased 3rd
Respondent Vide Court Order Dated 28.02.22 Made In CMP(MD).No.464 of 22
In CMA(MD).No.372 of 2020)
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 to set aside the order dated 29-05-2020
passed by the Joint Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Tirunelveli in
E.C.No.19 of 2013 and allow this appeal with costs.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran
For Respondents : Mr.H.Arumugam for R4 and R5
: Mr.V.Sasikumar for R2
: No Appearance for R6 and R7
: R1 and R3 Died
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
2/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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
3/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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:-
Heads Amounts in Rs.
Sl.No.
1 Loss of dependency 8,85,480/-
2 Funeral Expenses 5,000/-
Total Compensation Awarded Rs.8,90,480/-
4/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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
5/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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
6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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
7/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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
8/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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
9/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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:
10/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
“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.”
11/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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. ”
12/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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.
13/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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.
19 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
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
CMA(MD)No.372 of 2020
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.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
aas
C.M.A.(MD).No.372 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 10:19:36 pm )