Madras High Court
S.Selvaraj vs The Management Of on 9 March, 2021
C.M.A.No.168 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.168 of 2017
S.Selvaraj ..Appellant
Vs.
1.The Management of
Shoba Metallic Yarn Industries,
S.F.No.415, Somaiyampalayam Village,
Kalappanaickenpalayam,
Coimbatore – 641 108.
2.The Regional Director,
Sub-Regional Office,
Employees State Insurance Corporation,
No.333, Cross Cut Road,
Coimbatore – 641 012. ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 82 of the
Employee's State Insurance Act, against the order passed in
ESI.CMA.No.1 of 2006 dated 13.06.2016 on the file of the Hon'ble
Employee's State Insurance Court-cum-Labour Court, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Vijayaragavan
For Respondents : R1 – Left
R2 – Mr.T.N.C.Koushik
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
C.M.A.No.168 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The order dated 13.06.2016 passed in ESI.CMA.No.1 of 2006 is
under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. The Substantial Question of law raised by the appellant, which
reads as under:
“1. Can the Lower Court rejected the claim of the
Appellant even after came to the conclusion that he has
the permanent disability of 10% of loss of earning
capacity?
2. Can the Lower Court rejected the claim of
medical expenditure to the tune of Rs.25,000/- even
though the Respondents themselves admitted that the
Appellant is entitled to get the amount spent for medical
expenditure under Section 96A of Employees' State
Insurance Act?
3. Can the Lower Court after receiving the
evidence from the Doctor and the Medical Board who
examined the Appellant and issue Certificate to that
effect and give evidence before the Lower Court, insist
the Appellant to prove the injuries once again by
adducing his personal evidence?”
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.168 of 2017
3. The substantial question of law raised are relatable to the facts
of the case and the appellant met with an accident and based on the
accident report, he filed an application for compensation. The ESI Court
adjudicated the issues with reference to the documents and evidences.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly
contended that the medical expenditures were not paid to the appellant,
despite the fact that the accident was established. However, perusal of
the order passed by the ESI Court reveals that, except the statements
mentioned in the Claim Petition, the appellant has not established any
disability or otherwise before the ESI Court by submitting evidences or
documents. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the findings are relevant for the
purpose of ascertaining the fact that the appellant has not suffered any
functional deformity and further, he has not produced any documents to
establish that he suffered permanent disability. The learned counsel for
the respondent states that the appellant has not submitted the Medical
bills and in the event of submitting the medical bills, the authorities
competent would be in a position to consider the same.
5. Perusal of the order passed by the ESI Court, this Court is of an
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.168 of 2017
opinion that the appellant has not established any disability or otherwise
nor produced any medical bills, enabling the ESI Court to consider his
case for reimbursement of medical bills. In the absence of any evidence,
the ESI Court is right in rejecting the petition and the appellant has not
established any acceptable substantial question of law, so as to consider
the appeal any further.
6. Accordingly, order dated 13.06.2016 passed in ESI.CMA.No.1
of 2006 stands confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in
C.M.A.No.168 of 2017 stands dismissed. No costs.
09.03.2021
kak
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
To
The Employee's State Insurance Court-cum-Labour Court,
Coimbatore.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.168 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.A.No.168 of 2017
C.M.A.No.168 of 2017
09.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
