Thirunavukkarasu vs Vasanthi
2021 Latest Caselaw 19823 Mad

                                                                                C.M.A.No.1257 of 2016

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 28.09.2021

                                                          CORAM:

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                                 C.M.A. No. 1257 of 2016
                                                and C.M.P.No.9548 of 2016


                     Thirunavukkarasu                                                   ... Appellant

                                                             Vs

                     Vasanthi                                                         ... Respondent


                     Prayer: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of
                     Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, to set aside the Order dated
                     03.11.2014 (Received on 19.01.2015) made in W.C.No. 358 of 2008 on the
                     file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Commissioner of workmen's
                     Compensation, Salem.


                                      For Appellant               : Mr. N.Manokaran
                                      For Respondent              : Served, No Appearance




                     1/9



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                          C.M.A.No.1257 of 2016



                                                   JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated

03.11.2014, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Commissioner

of Workmen's Compensation, Salem, in W.C.No.358 of 2008.

2. Under the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner of

Labour/Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Salem has directed the

appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.69,694/- (Rupees Sixty Nine

Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Four only) together with interest at 12%

to the respondent.

3. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned Counsel for the

appellant and the respondent has been duly served and her name is also

printed in the cause list today. The appellant, who is the employer has

challenged the impugned order on the following grounds:

a) Employer – Employee relationship has not been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1257 of 2016

proved by the respondent before the Deputy

Commissioner of Labour.

b) the First Information Report was registered only

on 29.05.2007 and on the said First Information

Report, the date of the accident is mentioned as

25.05.2007, whereas, the alleged accident had taken

place on 04.05.2007, which resulted in the

respondent sustaining injuries. Therefore, there are

contradictions in the statement made by the

respondent and therefore the Deputy Commissioner

of Labour ought not to have held the appellant liable

to pay the compensation.

c) the appellant has already been acquitted by the

Criminal Court in STC No. 874 of 2008. Therefore,

the Deputy Commissioner of Labour ought to have

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1257 of 2016

taken into consideration the aforesaid factor also and

exonerated the liability of the appellant.

d) The medical evidence as seen from the Doctor's

disability certificate (Ex.A7) reveals that the

respondent was having only “infected wounds”.

Therefore, according to the appellant, the meaning

of the word “infected wounds” is the formation of

pus about 36 to 48 hours prior to become septic and

therefore according to the appellant, the respondent

did not sustain injuries as a result of the accident

during the course of her employment with the

appellant.

4. The appellant has raised following substantial questions of law

in his grounds of appeal:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1257 of 2016

a) Whether the learned Commissioner is right in

ignoring the order of acquittal made in STC

No.874 of 2008 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate No., 2, Gobichettipalayam wherein the

trial court has rejected the claim of the injuries in

the course of the alleged occurrence?

b) Whether the commissioner erred in law in

holding that the appellant is liable to pay

compensation especially when the there was no

privity of contract between the appellant and

respondents?

c) Whether the learned commissioner is correct in

law in fixing the liability on the appellant

especially when the medical evidence runs contra

to the case pleaded by the respondent?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1257 of 2016

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this

Court to the application filed by the respondent seeking compensation as

well as the counter statement filed by the appellant denying the liability

before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Salem. He also drew the

attention of this Court to the impugned order and would submit that the

grounds raised by the appellant in this appeal were not considered by the

Deputy Commissioner of Labour in accordance with law. According to him,

the employer–employee relationship has not been proved by the respondent

and the nature of the injuries sustained by the respondent, as seen from the

disability certificate (Ex.A7), clearly reveals that the injuries sustained by

the respondent was not as a result of the accident and during the course of

her employment with the appellant.

6. This Court has perused and examined the impugned order as

well as the application filed by the respondent before the Deputy

Commissioner of Labour. The contentions raised by the appellant in this

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1257 of 2016

appeal has been duly considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour in

the impugned order. The question of employer-employee relationship raised

by the appellant was also considered by the Deputy Commissioner of

Labour and the nature of injuries sustained by the respondent which has

been raised in this appeal has also been duly considered under the impugned

order. Any claim under the Workmen Compensation Act, by a victim, has to

be adjudicated based on the preponderance of probabilities. The Deputy

Commissioner of Labour has passed the impugned order only based on the

said principles by directing the appellant to pay a compensation of

Rs,69,694/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Four

only) together with interest at 12%, to the respondent.

7. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's

Compensation Act, 1925 and only when substantial questions of law are

involved, this Court can entertain this appeal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1257 of 2016

8. The issues raised by the appellant in this appeal are all factual

issues which have been duly considered by the Deputy Commissioner of

Labour. There are no debatable issue of law involved in this appeal.

Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

28.09.2021

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No rgi

To

1. Deputy Commissioner of Labour/Commissioner of workmen's Compensation, Salem.

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras – 104.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.M.A.No.1257 of 2016

ABDUL QUDDHOSE.,J

rgi

C.M.A. No. 1257 of 2016

28.09.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/