Madras HC Upholds Rs.19.77 Lakh Employees’ Compensation Award On Motor Claim, Finding Injured Driver Was Hired By Car Owner

The first respondent, who claimed to be employed as the driver of a car insured by the appellant, sustained injuries in an accident on 22 January 2020 while driving it in the course of his employment.

He sought compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Tribunal found that he was employed as the driver, treated the claim as one under the Employees’ Compensation Act, and awarded Rs.19,77,595 with interest at 7.25% per annum.

The insurer appealed, disputing the Tribunal’s power to treat the claim as an Employees’ Compensation claim and challenging its liability and the award.

The Court relied on the principle that, where a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable, the court may consider converting it into a claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act and grant the lesser relief available under that Act if the evidence establishes that the claimant was employed by the vehicle’s owner and the accident occurred in the course of that employment.

It cited Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishnan, (2003) 2 LW 73, and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaliya Pillai, (2002) 4 CTC 469, for that principle.

The Court also noted that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and under the Employees’ Compensation Act are summary in nature.

The Court found that the claimant’s evidence, together with P.W.2’s testimony that he had arranged for the claimant to work as the car’s driver, established the employment relationship.

Cross-examination elicited nothing material to discredit that evidence, and the insurer produced no contrary evidence.

Applying the cited precedents, the Court held that the claim could be considered under the Employees’ Compensation Act because the evidence established employment and an accident in the course of that employment.

It therefore rejected the insurer’s challenge to the Tribunal’s treatment of the claim and its liability.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.