1 C.M.A.No.935 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A.No.935 of 2013
K. Rajan ...Appellant
Versus
1.M/s.Siva Tea Industry,
Bangalorai,
Kattabettu Post, Kotagiri, The Nilgiris.
2. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Johnson Square, Kotagiri Post,
The Nilgiris. ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated
05.05.2005 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor in W.C.No.94 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr. A. Bobblie
For Respondents : Mr. D.Bhaskaran for R2
: No Appearance for R1
*****
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 05.05.2005 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor in W.C.No.94 of 2022. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1 2 C.M.A.No.935 of 2013
2. The case of the appellant herein is that the appellant was working in the first respondent's factory as an electrician. When he was working in C.T.C. Machine in the 1st respondent's factory, his right hand got into the machine and he sustained grievous injuries in his right hand. Immediately, he was rushed to the K.M.F. Mission Hospital, Kotagiri and later, he was admitted to Sheela Clinic Coimbatore. Due to injury sustained in the 1st respondent's factory, during the course of employment, he preferred W.C. No.94 of 2002 under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act, seeking for compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- from the 1st respondent factory. After having heard the learned counsel for both parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour dismissed the W.C.No.94 of 2002 by order dated 05.05.2005 holding that the doctors concerned were not examined to prove the disability of the petitioner and treatment given to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 05.05.2005 passed by the Trial Court, the injured workman/applicant has filed the present appeal to set aside the same.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to see that the appellant was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 3 C.M.A.No.935 of 2013 sustained grievous injuries on the right hand in the course of his employment hours while working in CTC Machine in the 1st respondent's Factory. Further, the petitioner/appellant herein has filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 to substantiate the evidence of treatment and disability sustained by him. Without considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Trial Court on the side of the petitioner in a proper manner, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour dismissed the claim petition by order dated 05.05.2005 holding that the doctors who had given treatment and issued the disability certificate were not examined before the Court below.
4. It has been further submitted that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in his right hand during the course of his employment. He was given treatment in two hospitals and was assessed disability @ 37% by the doctors. Accordingly, the appellant has filed the documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 before the Labour Court to substantiate his case. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation claimed by him under Workmen compensation Act. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner erred in dismissing the claim petition without deciding the quantum of compensation amount on his own. Hence, he seeks this Court to set aside the order dated 05.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in W.C. No.94 of 2002. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 4 C.M.A.No.935 of 2013
5.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly dismissed the claim petition, even though the Labour Court ordered for examination of Doctor who had issued disability certificate to the petitioner, the concerned doctor was not examined before the Court below. Further, while the petitioner has produced the medical records for taking treatment from one Doctor Mr.S.Rajapandian, the disability certificate @37% was issued by another doctor by name Mr.Perumal. In the event of this contra evidence, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. Hence, this Court need not to interfere with the same.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. There is no representation for the 1st respondent despite notice was served.
7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner/appellant herein has sustained grievous injuries while working in CTC Machine in the 1st respondent's factory. Due to the injury, the petitioner was given treatment and issued disability certificate by the Doctors. Accordingly, the petitioner/appellant herein produced the Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 for having taken https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4 5 C.M.A.No.935 of 2013 treatment in the Hospital. While being so, mere producing the medical records without examining the concern doctors who had given treatment and issued the disability certificate, the claim petition of the petitioner cannot be considered. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein.
8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Labour Court and confirms the order dated 05.05.2005 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner.
9.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs.
05.04.2023 Lbm Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/no Speaking/Non-speaking Order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5 6 C.M.A.No.935 of 2013 A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Lbm To:
1.The Workmen Compensation Commissioner/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.935 of 2013 05.04.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6