CRP/4384/2025 of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs K. Anitha

C.R.P.No.4384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI C.R.P.No.4384 of 2025 And C.M.P.No.22431 of 2025 M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. Branch Office at M/s.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, No.84, Wall Tax Road, Chennai – 600 003. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.K.Anitha 2.Minor.K.Dhansika (Minor Rep. by her mother K.Anitha) 3.R.Muthumari 4.M.V.Raja 5.B.Bala Senthil 6.Manager, Panasonic (Principal Employer) No.88, Spic House, 6th Floor, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ... Respondents 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4384 of 2025 Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 21.09.2024, pas sed in I.A.No.42 of 2024, in EC No.38 of 2019, by the Commissioner for Emp loyees Compensation – Joint Commissioner of Labour I, Chennai – 6. For Petitioner : Mr.Michael Visuvasam for Mr.R.V.Sivaraj For Respondents : R1 and R2 – Not Ready Notice Mr.R.T.Chidambaram for R3, R4 Mr.S.G.Ramesh Kumar for R5 Ms.Keerthana S.B. for R6 for M/s.Advit Law Chamber O R D E R The petitioner has filed this civil revision petition praying to set aside the order dated 21.09.2024, passed in I.A. No.42 of 2024, in EC No.38 of 2019, by the Commissioner for Employees Com pensation – Joint Commissioner of Labour I, Chennai – 6. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit ted that the respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of dec eased Karthikeyan. The deceased was employed with the fifth r espondent and the sixth respondent is the Principal Employer. The Pr incipal 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4384 of 2025 Employer has taken personal accident coverage policy with the petitioner Insurance Company. Initially respondents 1 t o 4 filed claim petition under the Workmen Compensation Act without imp leading the petitioner Insurance Company as party and subsequent ly, the petitioner Insurance Company was impleaded as party in I.A.No.42 of 2024 vide order dated 21.09.2024 and challenging the sa me, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner furth er submitted that the revision petition has been filed solely on the ground that as per the policy taken by the sixth respondent with the petitioner, the personal accident coverage covers Rs.2 ,50,000/- and the said amount was already paid to the respondents 1 to 4 and the same was also recorded in the impugned order and beyond that amount, no amount need to be paid by the petitioner fo r the liability fastened by way of Insurance Policy obtained by the six th respondent. Hence, impleading the petitioner as party in EC No.38 of 2 019 is not sustainable one. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that it is purely dispute between the legal he irs of the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4384 of 2025 deceased and Principal Employer and the petitioner and mere impleading of the petitioner Insurance Company will not cause prejudice to the petitioner to canvass all the points a t the time of final hearing and further submitted that the impugned order is only an order impleading the petitioner and not an adverse order against the petitioner. Hence, this Court may, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, issue direction to the Commissioner for Employees Compensation – Joint Commissioner of Labour I, Chennai, to decide EC No.38 of 2019, in the manner known to law. 5.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and per used the materials available on record. 6.Perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is an order impleading the petitioner herein as the third respondent in EC No.38 of 2019 and not an adverse order against the petitioner. Hence, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the Commissioner for Employees Compensation – Joint Commis sioner of Labour I, Chennai, to decide EC No.38 of 2019, in t he manner known to law, as expeditiously as possible. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4384 of 2025 7.The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16.04.2026 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No To The Commissioner for Employees Compensation – Joint Commissioner of Labour I, Chennai – 6. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4384 of 2025 M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri C.R.P.No.4384 of 2025 And C.M.P.No.22431 of 2025 16.04.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis