Kerala High Court
M/S.Poabs Granites Private Limited vs The Commissioner For Employees ... on 12 April, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 23772 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
M/S.POABS GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED
KUTTOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA-689106, REPRESENTED BY THE
DIRECTOR, K.A.ABRAHAM.
BY ADV
SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION
THOZHIL BHAVAN, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695 033.
2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, POLACHIRACKAL CHAMBERS,
P.B.NO.1109, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686002, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
3 BIJU V.
BINU BHAVANAM, P.O.NOORANADU, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA
-690 505.
BY ADVS.
T.U.SUJITH KUMAR
SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SRI.A.K.MOHAMED ALI
SRI.KKM.SHERIF
SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23772 OF 2013
: 2 :
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order
passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Thiruvananthapuram, awarding an amount
of Rs.8,44,608/-(Rupees eight lakhs forty four thousand
six hundred and eight only) for the personal injuries
caused to the workman, the 3rd respondent, while in
employment with the petitioner.
2. The 3rd respondent, while working as Plant
Operator in the petitioner company, sustained injuries
resulting in the amputation of right arm just below the
elbow. As per schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923, the loss of earning capacity of the 3 rd
respondent is 80%. The petitioner company is having
insurance policy with the 2nd respondent, New India
WP(C) NO. 23772 OF 2013
Assurance Company Ltd. and the petitioner submitted
Ext.P1 'report of accident to workmen' before the 2 nd
respondent. Ext.P2 is the medical report issued by
orthopaedic surgeon. After due verification of the claim,
the Insurance company issued a cheque for
Rs.4,25,030/- towards compensation for the injuries
sustained by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P5 memorandum of
agreement was also executed between the petitioner and
the 3rd respondent stating that the 3rd respondent has
accepted the amount of Rs.4,25,030/- in full settlement
of every claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act in
respect of all disablement arising out of the accident. It
is stated that a copy of Ext.P5 agreement was also
submitted to the 1st respondent.
3. While so, the petitioner received a show cause
WP(C) NO. 23772 OF 2013
notice dated 16.08.2013 from the 1 st respondent directing
the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.4,19,578/- being the
balance compensation payable to the 3rd respondent. On
enquiry made by the petitioner, it is understood that
the said show cause notice has been issued pursuant to
Ext.P7 order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the 1st
respondent.
4. In Ext.P7, the 1st respondent has assessed the
workmen's compensation amount in respect of the 3 rd
respondent as Rs.8,44,608/-. Since an amount of
Rs.4,25,030/- was already paid by the 2nd respondent
insurance Company, the petitioner was directed to pay
the balance amount of Rs.4,19,578/-(Rupees four lakhs
nineteen thousand five hundred and seventy eight only)
with 12% interest for the entire amount.
WP(C) NO. 23772 OF 2013
5. The petitioner submits that Ext.P7 order was
passed without notice to the petitioner and the 2 nd
respondent and prays for setting aside the same. It is
also contended by the petitioner that the 1 st respondent
has no jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of
Ext.P7.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned counsel for the insurance company and the
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent workman.
7. It is not disputed that Ext.P7 order was passed
without hearing the petitioner and the insurance
company. Ext.P7 order entails civil consequences to the
petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the
same is set aside being one passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice. Since Ext.P7 order is set
WP(C) NO. 23772 OF 2013
aside, there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to
consider the matter afresh and pass orders after hearing
the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It
will be open to the parties to raise all their contentions
before the 1st respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SRJ
WP(C) NO. 23772 OF 2013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23772/2013
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT REPORT IN FORM
NO.AC-9 DT.16-6-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EMPLOYER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT ISSUED BY
ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEON TO 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE
PRESCRIBED FORM AC-6 DATED.26-5-2011.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED.17-8-2011 SENT TO
1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF R1
FOR RS.4,25,030/- DATED 10-8-2011 FOR PAYMENT TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
DATED 9-5-2011 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31-8-2011 ISSUED
BY PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND REPORT
OF THE FATAL ACCIDENT IN FORM EE.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 17-4-2012 OF
THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16-8-
2013 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24-8-2013 SENT BY
PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
