THE BRANCH MANAGER, vs N. PITCHAIMANI
- Court
- Madras High Court
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 28.10.2026
Delivered On: 10.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE P. MURUGAN
C.M.A.(MD) No. 619 of 2023
CNR:{HCMD010784962022}
and
C.M.P.(MD) No. 7861 of 2023
The Branch Manager,
Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd,
No.1290/1, First Floor,
Periyakulam Road,
nd
Theni 625 531. ... Appellant /2 Respondent
Vs.
1. N. Pitchaimani,
S/o Natarajan,
No.29, Mahatma Gandhi Street,
Vadakarai,
Periyakulam,
st
Theni District 625 601. … 1 Respondent/ Claimant
2. The Proprietor,
Gurukrishna Textiles Mills (P) Ltd,
No.207B, Annanchi By pass road,
OOnchampatti Village,
nd st
Theni District 625 531. … 2 Respondent /1 Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of
Employee’s Compensation Act, to set aside the award dated
24.05.2022 passed in E.C.No.84 of 2019 on the file of the
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
Commissioner of Labour for Employee's Compensation, Dindigul
by allowing the civil miscellaneous appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Ravi
For Respondents : Ms.S.Mamtha for R2
: No appearance for R1
J U D G M E N T
The Insurance Company, who is the second respondent in
E.C.No.84 of 2019 on the file of the Commissioner of Labour for
Employee's Compensation, Dindigul, is the appellant before this
Court, challenging the order dated 24.05.2022, wherein the claim
petition filed by the first respondent herein was partly allowed,
directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs only) together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
the date of accident till the date of realisation.
2. Brief facts before the Employee’s Compensation
Commissioner as per the claim petition filed by the legal heir of the
deceased Kumuthavalli is as that:
The first respondent’s mother Kumuthavalli while working at
the second respondent’s Textiles Mill as helper by way of loading
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
the cotton on 16.11.2016 at 11.00 pm, due to heavy work and stress,
she sustained blood pressure and fainted. Immediately, she was
taken to private hospital, viz., N.R.T. Hospital at Theni, where first
aid given and for further treatment she was referred to Government
Medical College Hospital, Theni. On examining the said
Kumuthavalli, the duty Doctor referred that she was brought dead.
The first respondent is the legal heir of the deceased Kumuthavalli.
The deceased was aged about 51 years at the time of employment
and she was earning Rs.300/- per day, amounting to a total monthly
income of Rs.9,000/-. In this regard, a case in Crime No.500 of
2016 on the file of Allinagaram Police Station was registered. The
deceased Kumuthavalli died during the course of employment at the
second respondent’s Textile Mill and the second respondent has
taken insurance policy, thereby, the first respondent claimed a sum
of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as compensation with
interest at the rate of12% per annum.
3. Brief counter of the Mill owner, who is the second
respondent, in this appeal is as that:
The allegations that Kumuthavalli died during the course of
employment is denied, wherein, when she was taken to hospital and
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
during the transport, she died. Therefore, the second respondent is
not liable. The salary of Rs.300/- per day is denied, wherein, she was
engaged as casual labour and paid Rs.160/-. She is not in regular
employment and she sustained blood pressure and the death is not
during the course of employment. The second respondent taken
insurance policy from the appellant. Thereby, if any award is passed,
the appellant / insurance company is liable to pay compensation to
the first respondent / claimant.
4. The insurance company, who is the appellant herein,
filed counter before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner,
denying the accident and the relationship of employer and employee
and it is the duty of the claimant to prove the same. Though the
second respondent has taken Tailor made group personal accident
insurance policy from 22.09.2016 to 21.09.2017 and if any of the
workmen died during the course of employment by accident or
permanent disability out of the said accident or partial disability out
of the accident makes liability for workman is Rs.3,00,000/-. As per
the policy and the case facts, the deceased Kumuthavalli died during
the course of employment and she was already sustained blood
pressure, stress, etc. Therefore, her death is normal one. Therefore,
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
the Insurance Company is not liable to pay policy amount. Even the
death of Kumuthavalli was registered as suspicious death under
section 174 of Cr.P.C, therefore, the claim is to be rejected.
5. After taking note of the case fact and after examining
claimant as P.W.1, Staff of the Textile Mill, viz., Rajkumar
examined as R.W.1 and the staff of the insurance company, viz.
Jerold Arokiaraj, examined as R.W.2 and after exhibiting certain
documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and Ex.R1, the Employee’s
Commissioner, Dindigul, had come to a conlcusion that the death of
Kumuthavalli was happened during the course of employment with
the Mill owner and having the Mill owner availed insurance for
1800 workmen with the insurance company subject to maximum
policy amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only), to each
workmen thereby, the Commissioner determined the total
compensation of Rs.5,32,800/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Two
Thousand and Eight Hundred only) and out of the amount, the
insurance company was directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs only), together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and
the Mill owner was directed to pay Rs.2,32,800/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand and Eight Hundred only) together with
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till
the date of realisation.
6. The authority, who passed the impugned order,
determined the age of the deceased was 56 years and daily income
was considered as Rs.300/- per day, wherein, the mill owner claimed
that he paid Rs.160/- per day, but there is no proof at all. After
taking into consideration, the award of Rs.5,32,800/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand and Eight Hundred only) was passed.
Against the said award / order, the insurance company, filed this
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. There is no appeal filed by the Mill
owner.
7. The appeal was admitted by this Court, by an order dated
07.07.2023, framed the following substantial questions of law:
I. Whether the Commissioner of Labour is right
in holding that the appellant is liable under the
Group Personal Accident Policy to pay the
Employee’s Compensation Act liability of the
second respondent, when the death of the deceased
is not due to the accident as defined in the policy of
contract?
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
II. Whether the Commissioner is right in
holding that the appellant is liable to pay interest @
12% from the date of accident, when the appellant
is impleaded from 08.01.2020 only?
8. The contention of the insurance company before this
Court is as that as per the policy in Ex.P8, that the mill owner taken
insurance policy is Tailor made group personal accident insurance
policy for 1800 workmen for the period from 22.09.2016 to
21.09.2017 subject to maximum Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
only) as compensation, in the case of death or permanent
disablement or partial permanent disablement. As per the policy
Ex.P8, the accident means a sudden, unforeseen and involuntary
even caused by external visible and violent means. Referring the
meaning of accident, it is contended by the insurance company that
there is no external injury to the deceased Kumuthavalli. Though
she was working at the mill, she fainted, as per the facts reveal that
already she suffered with blood pressure, stress etc. Therefore, the
deceased suddenly fainted and taken to the hospital is not coming
under the accident.
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
9. The same stand was taken before the Commissioner and
the Commissioner considered the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision
in the case of Param Pal Singh v . National Insurance Company
Ltd. , (2013 (1) TNMAC 1 (SC), wherein it was held that by taking
note of section 3(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the
scope of accident of untoward and unexpected, mishap, if could be
construed to be falling within definition of accident. Thereby the
fact was casual connection to the death of the deceased with that of
employment as a truck driver, where the deceased aged about 45
years, a heavy vehicle driver, after long distance driving parked
vehicle and fainted, unexpected death as a result of heart failure due
to stress and strain due to long distance driving. Constant driving of
heavy vehicle, a material contributory factor though not sole cause
that accelerated unexpected death. Such untoward mishap can be
described as and accident solely attributable to nature of
employment. Finding of Commissioner that death was in accident
arising out of and in course of his employment, held justified.
10. Here the facts of the case that Kumuthavalli was
working at the mill as the cotton load-woman, due to heavy work
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
and pressure she sustained stress and blood pressure, thereby she
feinted and having taken to the hospital, the Doctor reported brought
dead, thereby, cited the case facts also similar to the present case
facts. Therefore, the workman died during the employment, out of
work pressure or heavy work and it comes under section 3(1) of the
Employee’s Compensation Act, thereby, the contention of the
insurance company that the accident was not happened that there is
an external injury cannot be a ground to reject. Though Ex.P8 says
that the internal organ failure was due to the accident, resulting in
loss of earning capacity.
11. It is not in dispute that there is insurance coverage from
22.09.2016 to 21.09.2016 and the occurrence was taken place on
16.11.2016. Therefore, his insurance coverage was restricted to a
liability of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only), which is not
disputed. Having the Commissioner determined the qualified
compensation and the quantum is also not in dispute.
12. The Insurance Company has contended that awarding
interest 12% is not permissible cannot be a good ground, wherein as
per Section 4A(3) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, the
minimum simple interest prescribed is 12% per annum or such
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
higher rate as may be applicable, depending on the prevailing rate of
interest charged by the Scheduled Banks, whichever is higher. In the
present case, the simple interest prescribed under the enactment is
12% per annum. Therefore, the Commissioner has no power to
reduce the same. Therefore, the interest remains intact.
13. In view of the above, this Court answered both the
substantial questions of law against the Insurance Company /
appellant. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed.
14. In the result:
(I) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed;
(ii) the impugned order passed in E.C.No.84 of 2019 on the
file of the Commissioner of Labour for Employee's Compensation,
Dindigul, is hereby confirmed; and
(ii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.11.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
LS
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
To
The Commissioner of Labour for Employee's Compensation,
Dindigul.
Copy To :
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )
CMA(MD) No. 619 of 2023
DR. P. MURUGAN J.
LS
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD) No. 619 of 2023
10.11.2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 04:10:53 pm )