Madras High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Devanathan on 22 July, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
2026:MHC:3080
1 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-07-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CMA No. 2121 of 2026
and CMP No.16270 of 2026
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.13-A, SBI Complex
Nethaji Road,
Manjakuppam
Cuddalore - 607 001.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Devanathan
S/o.Kaliyamoorthy
2.R.Chandra
W/o Ramasamy
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Sectio 30 Employees
Compensation Act, 1923, to set aside the order dated 22-11-2024 made in
EC.No.154 of 2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour II, on the file
of the Joint Commissioner of Labour-II for Employees Compensation,
Chennai -06 and be pleased to dismiss the said claim application against the
appellant herein after holding that owner of the Lorry/2nd Respondent alone
made liable.
For Appellant(s): Mr. J.Vijaya Raghavan
For Respondent(s): Mrs.V.Ramya Rao for R1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
2 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the order
passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour-II for Employee’s Compensation,
Chennai-06, dated 22.11.2024.
2.The 1st respondent filed the petition before the Joint Commissioner of
Labour on the ground that he was engaged as an alternate driver by the 2 nd
respondent and he was travelling in the vehicle on 12.09.2022 from Namakkal
to Uttar Pradesh. The regular driver was driving the vehicle and at about 12.00
noon, the vehicle in which the 1st respondent was travelling dashed against the
rear side of a parked lorry, as a result of which the 1st respondent sustained a
serious EPL injury to the left thumb for which he underwent treatment and a
procedure was performed on 28.09.2022. The injury resulted in restriction of
extension of the IP joint in the left thumb. It is under these circumstances, the
petition came to be filed before the Joint Commissioner of Labour against the
2nd respondent who is the employer/injured and the appellant who is the insurer.
3.The appellant took a stand that the alternate driver is not covered under
the policy and the policy only covers the paid driver who actually drives the
vehicle and therefore the Insurance Company denied their liability under the
policy and sought for the dismissal of the petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
3 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
4.The Joint Commissioner of Labour, on considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence came to a conclusion
that there was an employer-employee relationship between the 1 st and 2nd
respondents herein and that the Insurance policy covered the accident which
resulted in the 1st respondent sustainning injuries in the course of his
employment.
5.Having rendered the above finding, the Joint Commissioner of Labour
fixed the total compensation of Rs.3,80,222/- and the same was directed to be
paid along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the same,
the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal before this Court.
6.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
7.The substantial question of law that is involved in the present case is;
Whether the 1st respondent who admittedly claims to be
an alternate driver is covered under the policy which covers
only the driver who actually drives the vehicle and without
any additional premium collected to cover the alternate driver
also ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
4 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
8.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no
insurance cover for an alternate/spare driver and the liability of the Insurance
Company has to be strictly construed as per the policy that has been issued and
if the policy does not cover an alternate/spare driver, the liability cannot be
fastened against the Insurance Company. To substantiate this submission, the
learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the Manager,
National Insurance Co.,Ltd., vs. Saju P.Paul and another reported in 2013 1
TA MAC 2025 and Ramashray Singh .vs. New India Assurance Co.,Ltd.,
and Others reported in 2003 3 CTC 380.
9.The further submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the injury was not assessed by the Medical Board and that the Joint
Commissioner of Labour has unilaterally fixed the disability at 27% which is in
violation of the schedule appended to the Workmen’s Compensation Act and
consequently an excessive compensation has been fixed in the present case,
which also requires the interference of this Court.
10.Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the
1st respondent has established the employer-employee relationship with the 2 nd
respondent and there was no contra evidence available on the side of the
Insurance Company. It is submitted that the policy in question was a
comprehensive policy which covered a driver. Considering the welfare
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
5 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
legislation, an alternate driver carrying goods for long distances, must also be
brought within the purview of the driver more particularly where only a single
claim has been made by the alternative driver. To substantiate this submission,
the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in
Narayana Naika .vs. J.D.Subbaraya Sheregar dated 24.07.2023. The learned
counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in
Mohammedgouse .Vs. Mohammed Ismail and another dated 28.6.2024.
The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Orissa High
Court in Bishnu Priya Baral and others .vs. Manas Ranjan Swain and
Another dated 05.07.2023.
11.Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned
counsel submitted that the Joint Commissioner of Labour had taken into
consideration the fact that the EPL injury sustained by the 1 st respondent to the
left thumb has resulted in the restriction of the extension of the IP joint, which
has a direct impact on the avocation of the 1 st respondent who was a driver.
Hence, it is contended that the compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable and the same does not require the interference of this Court.
12.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the materials available on record and has carefully gone through the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
6 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour-II for Employees
Compensation.
13.The substantial question of law that has been framed by this Court
directly touches upon the liability of the Insurance Company under the policy.
Hence, this issue is first taken up for consideration.
14.In the case in hand, the petition was filed by the 1 st respondent before
the Joint Commissioner of Labour under Section 10(1) of the Workmen
Compensation Act by taking a specific plea that the 1 st respondent was engaged
as a driver (alternate driver) under the 2nd respondent and there was an
employer-employee relationship between the 1st and 2nd respondents. This claim
made by the 1st respondent has been denied by the appellant in the counter
affidavit.
15.In the case in hand, the 2nd respondent is the employer and the 2nd
respondent had engaged the services of a driver and an alternate driver to carry
the goods from Namakkal to Uttar Pradesh. The same has also been spoken to
by the 1st respondent, who was examined as PW.1.
16.When the goods are carried for long distances, it is a normal practice
to have a driver and an alternate driver so that they share the burden of driving
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
7 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
the vehicle alternately. Therefore, it is not unusual to have an alternate driver
in a vehicle carrying goods over long distances. In any event, the plea taken by
the 1st respondent and which has been substantiated in evidence, has not been
discredited on the side of the appellant Insurance Company.
17.Having rendered the above finding, it must be seen as to whether the
spare/alternate driver is also covered under the policy.
18.The insurance policy was marked as Ex.P.4. On going through the
same, it is seen that it is a comprehensive policy and that the premium has been
paid to meet the liability of a paid driver.
19.The bone of contention is that the policy covers only the driver on
wheels and not an alternate/spare driver.
20.This Court will now consider the judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant in the judgment in Saju Paul case. The Apex Court
was dealing with a claim petition that was filed under the Motor Vehicles Act.
That was a case where the policy covered only the driver and the claimant, who
was the injured took a plea that he was an alternate driver. The Apex Court
while construing the provision under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
held that the claimant in that case, at the best can be treated only as a gratuitous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
8 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
passenger and the insurance policy covered only the driver and the cleaner and
therefore the claimant in that case was not covered under the policy and as a
consequence, the Insurance Company cannot be mulcted with any liability.
21.In the second case, viz., Ramashray Singh, that was a case where the
claimant claimed himself to be a passenger who was travelling in the vehicle
which had been taken on hire. The Apex Court, on construing the policy came
to a conclusion that the policy covered only a class of persons specified in the
policy and not every other person/passenger and therefore the claimant was not
covered under the policy and consequently, the Insurance Company cannot be
mulcted with any liability.
22.At this juncture, this Court must deal with the judgments that were
relied upon by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
23.In the judgment in Narayana Naika Case, the Karnataka High Court
was dealing with a claim made under the Workmen Compensation Act and the
Court was directly dealing with the claim made by a spare driver. The High
Court held that the policy in question was a package policy and it also covered a
paid driver. The Court took into consideration the fact that the claimant therein
was engaged as a spare driver by the employer and therefore the premium that
was paid for covering the risk of the driver will also cover the spare driver.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
9 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
24.The judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in
Mohammed gouse case makes this position even more clearer where it was held
that if two separate claims are made in respect of driver and spare driver, unless
an additional premium is paid, the insurer will not be liable to pay compensation
for both the drivers. However, if the claim is in respect of only one driver and
that driver happens to be a spare driver, the policy will cover such a driver and
the Insurance Company will be liable to pay the compensation.
25.The last judgment relied upon is the judgment of the Orissa High
Court in Bishnu Priya case, which also involved an additional driver. The
Orissa High Court found that the Insurance Company had received the premium
to cover three persons including the driver and in that case, the claim was made
for two deceased persons and it was held that the liability of the Insurance
Company which was limited to three persons, also covered the additional driver
who was the deceased in that case and accordingly, the Insurance Company was
directed to pay the compensation.
26.A careful assessment of all the judgments shows that an Insurance
Company will be liable to pay the compensation only for those persons for
whom the insurance cover is given under the policy and to no other. This Court
must also bear in mind the scope of definition under Section 2 (dd)(II)(c)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
10 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
wherein an employee will include a person recruited as a driver, helper,
mechanic, cleaner or in any other capacity in connection with a motor vehicle.
Considering such an expansive definition provided under the Employees
Compensation Act, the driver must include, within its fold, an alternate/spare
driver who is engaged as a driver of a vehicle carrying goods for long distances.
27.The learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court
to Section 147 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that the proviso to
that Section covers only an employee engaged in driving the vehicle and no
other. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, it can cover only
the driver on the wheels and not spare/alternate driver.
28.In the considered view of this Court, a beneficial legislation must be
construed liberally and a Court cannot take a pedantic view while construing the
policy. Admittedly, the driver of the vehicle is covered under the policy. Two
scenarios may arise in a given case. There can be a case where in the accident,
both the driver and the spare driver may be injured. The other scenario is where
either of them are injured in the accident. In the former, since the policy covers
only a paid driver, the liability of the Insurance Company will confine itself
only to the driver on the wheels who was injured in the accident and it cannot
cover the spare/alternate driver. In the later case, the liability of the Insurance
Company will also cover the alternate driver who alone was injured in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
11 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
accident. This is in view of the fact that both the driver and the spare driver are
engaged by an employer to carry the goods over long distances and if either of
them are injured in an accident, the policy has to necessarily cover such an
eventuality. In such a scenario, a spare/alternate driver will be covered under
the policy. Any other restricted interpretation will go against the very objective
of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 which is a beneficial legislation.
29.The judgments that were relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant can be distinguished on facts and this case has to be dealt with on its
own facts qua the insurance policy and also the relevant provisions under the
Employee’s Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act. The upshot of the
above discussion leads to the only conclusion that the insurance policy issued
by the appellant Insurance Company covers the injury sustained by the
alternate/spare driver and consequently the compensation has to be paid by the
Insurance Company. The substantial question of law framed by this Court is
answered accordingly.
30.The next issue touches upon the compensation fixed by the Joint
Commissioner of Labour. The Joint Commissioner of Labour while fixing the
compensation has determined the loss of earning capacity at 27%. This was
done based on the accident register and the discharge summary which was
marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. Admittedly, the disability that was suffered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
12 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
1st respondent was spoken to only by the doctor, who was examined as PW.2
and the 1st respondent was not referred to the Medical Board.
31.In the schedule appended to the Workmen Compensation Act, even for
the loss of thumb, only 30% has been fixed. Considering the nature of the
injury that has been sustained by the 1st respondent, fixing 27% as loss of
earning capacity is certainly on the higher side. Considering the injury
sustained and the consequence as a result of the same, this Court is inclined to
fix the loss of earning capacity at 10%. Such approximation is done by this
Court considering the fact that the accident is of the year 2022 and by referring
the 1st respondent to the Medical Board at this stage, will only further delay the
process.
32.In the light of the above discussion, the compensation is modified as
follows:
Rs.15,000 x 60/100 x 156.47 x 10/100 = Rs.1,40,823/-
Medical Expenses = Rs. 9,285/-
----------------
Total Compensation : Rs.1,50,108/-
----------------
33.The appellant Insurance Company has already deposited the entire
compensation amount along with interest. The modified compensation amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
13 CMA No. 2121 of 2026fixed by this Court along with interest shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the
1st respondent. The balance amount along with interest shall be permitted to be
withdrawn by the appellant Insurance Company.
34.In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed in the
above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
22-07-2026
Index:Yes
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes
kp
To
The Joint Commissioner of Labour II,
Joint Commissioner of Labour-II for Employees Compensation,
Chennai-06.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2026:MHC:3080
14 CMA No. 2121 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
kp
CMA No. 2121 of 2026
22-07-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
