Madras High Court
Managing Director vs Eswaran on 6 December, 2021
CMA No.3323 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.M.A.No.3323 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.18896 of 2021
Managing Director
VaralakshmiStrach Industries (Pvt) Ltd
No.7/114-12G
Bommidi Main Road
Pappirettipatti Taluk
Dharmapuri District. ... Appellant
Vs
Eswaran ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923, praying to set aside the Award dated
09.04.2021 in E.C.No.222 of 2016 on the file of Commissioner, Employee's
Compensation/ Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem.
For Appellant : M/s.J.Prithivi
For Respondents : Mr.K.Krishnan
*******
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.3323 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The appeal is against the award of the Commissioner of
Employees Compensation in E.C.No.222 of 2016.
2. The respondent sought for compensation for injuries suffered
by him, in the accident that occurred while he was in employment as
watchman with the appellant. It is stated that though he was employed as a
skilled labour, he was asked to take care of watchman's duties and he was
asked to climb the watch tower which is at a height of 100 ft and while he
was watching the area outside the compound, the edge of the tin cut his
head, he became unconscious, fell down and suffered fractures in hip bone
on the right side and wrist. Claiming that he had suffered functional
disability of 100%, the respondent sought for Rs.15,00,000/- as
compensation.
3. The claim was resisted contending that the respondent had
climbed up the tower on his own and has fell down. Therefore, the accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.3323 of 2021
did not occur in the course of employment. It was also contended that the
quantum of compensation is exaggerated.
4. The learned Commissioner of Employees Compensation
assessed the compensation payable at Rs.3,19,817/- based on the functional
disability or loss of earning power which was assessed at 42%. The
Tribunal also found that the evidence of PW2, Doctor was not controverted
and therefore, the disability as assessed by the Doctor has to be accepted.
Employing the multiplier of 184.17, based on the age of the respondent, and
taking into account his monthly salary viz., Rs.6,891/-, the Tribunal arrived
at Rs.3,19,817/-. The Tribunal also directed payment of interest at 12%
from the date of accident.
5. I have heard Ms.J.Prithivi, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.K.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
6. Ms.J.Prithivi, would contend that the respondent was not
employed as a watchman and he had no business to climb up the tower.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.3323 of 2021
7. The Tribunal as of fact found that the claim of the respondent
regarding the accident is acceptable and had happened when he was
employed with the appellant. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere
with the said conclusion of the Tribunal on the factum of accident and the
nature of the accident.
8. On the quantum also, the learned counsel for the appellant is
not able to pick holes in the award of the Commissioner. The Commissioner
has taken correct multiplier based on the age and adopted the disability at
42%. These are all statutory calculations, which cannot be interfered with,
unless they are shown to be erroneous. The learned counsel for the
appellant is unable to show that the calculation is erroneous. Hence, the
quantum of compensation is also upheld.
9. Ms.J.Prithivi, would further contend that the claim was filed
with a delay of 473 days and therefore according to her, the Tribunal erred
in allowing the interest for the delay period also.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.3323 of 2021
10. Under the Employees Compensation Act, claim has to be filed
within two years, of course, the Commissioner of Employees Compensation
has got powers to condone the delay. If the delay is more than a year or
longer, the employers should not be saddled with interest for that period
also. The fact that the claim was filed belatedly is not in dispute. Hence,
the respondent would not be entitled to interest for the delay period of 473
days.
11. In the light of the above, the appeal is partly allowed, the
award of the Commissioner of Employees Compensation is confirmed with
a modification that the workman will not be entitled to interest for the delay
period.
12. It is stated that the employer has already deposited the
compensation amount. The Commissioner of Employees Compensation
shall pay out the compensation to the workman excluding the interest for
the period of 473 days and the same shall be refunded to the appellant/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.3323 of 2021
employer. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
06.12.2021
Index: No
Internet : Yes
Speaking order
dsa
To
The Commissioner, Employee's Compensation/
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMA No.3323 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
CMA No.3323 of 2021
06.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
