Quarry Driller Killed By Falling Stone: Madras HC Upholds ₹8.9 Lakh Award To Dependants, Rejecting Insurer’s Agricultural-Use Defence

In brief

The question

1. Whether the deceased was employed by the vehicle owner and died in the course of that employment

The court held

The Court answered the framed questions against the insurer, held that the findings on employment and the accident were not liable to be disturbed, and confirmed the award of Rs. 8,90,480 with interest.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

Kathiravan worked as a compressor drill operator in a stone quarry.

pp. 2–5

On 10 November 2012, a falling stone fatally injured him while he was drilling.

pp. 2–5

The tractor fitted with a compressor and used in the operation was insured with the appellant. The dependants claimed compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The Joint Commissioner found an employment relationship and that the death occurred in the course of employment, and awarded Rs. 8,90,480 with interest at 12% per annum.

pp. 2–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the deceased was employed by the vehicle owner and died in the course of that employment

pp. 5, 8–9

ii.2. Whether the insurance policy covered the risk of the deceased, a compressor drill operator, while the insured tractor fitted with a compressor was used in quarry operations

pp. 5–6, 8–12

iii.3. Whether the compensation award and the insurer’s liability required interference under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923

pp. 5, 12–14

03Law Applied

The Court considered the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, including the statutory compensation framework and the appeal under Section 30.

pp. 2, 13–14

Whether an insurer must indemnify the insured depends on the policy’s terms and endorsements, read as a whole; premium paid for one employee category does not, by itself, establish coverage for every other category.

p. 10

The Court referred to The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited v. K. Pavayee and Another, reported at 2010 (2) TN MAC 554, and to the discussion of M/s. Mangilal Vishnoi v. National Insurance Company Limited, reported at 2022 1 TNMAC 145, concerning the assessment of employee categories and insurance coverage.

pp. 10–12

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Employee Section 30

04Reasoning

The Court found that the policy described the insured vehicle as a tractor fitted with a compressor and that the evidence established its use for quarry drilling and the deceased’s employment as its operator. The death occurred during the drilling work entrusted to him, supporting the finding that it arose out of and in the course of employment.

pp. 8–9

The insurer’s reliance on the vehicle’s agricultural classification did not establish that the relevant use was excluded, and the policy had to be assessed by considering its description, terms, endorsements, and applicable premium entries together. Finding no sufficient basis to disturb the Commissioner’s findings or compensation calculation, the Court rejected the insurer’s challenge.

pp. 9–10, 12–14