Madras High Court
Marimuthu vs S.Mayilathal on 8 April, 2022
C.M.A.No.2698 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.A.No.2698 of 2016
and
C.M.P.No.19478 of 2016
Marimuthu ... Appellant
vs.
S.Mayilathal ... Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 15.09.2015 passed in
E.C.No.34 of 2013 on the file of the Workmen's Compensation-I
( Deputy Commissioner Labour) Coimbatore).
For Appellant : Mr.M.Velmurugan
For Respondent : Mr.N.Ponraj
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed as against the order dated 15.09.2015 passed
in E.C.No.34 of 2013 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 1 of 8
C.M.A.No.2698 of 2016
Compensation-I (Deputy Commissioner of Labour) at Coimbatore.
Appellant herein is the respondent in E.C.No.34 of 2013, who was
directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,17,863/- to the claimant/mother of
the deceased employee.
2. As per the averments in E.C.No.34 of 2013 filed by the
respondent herein, her son Manian was employed in the garden of the
appellant for the past 9 years for a daily wage of Rs.300/- per day. It is
stated that the deceased used to water the coconut trees, maintain the
garden as may be required and to sprinkle fertilizer to the plants and
trees. While so, on the fateful day on 23.10.2012, the deceased went for
his employment in the morning. At that time, the deceased informed the
appellant that the electric motor is faulty and it warrants repair without
which water cannot be pumped out from the electric motor. The
appellant also agreed for the same and at about 1.00 pm the appellant
said to have informed the deceased that the electric fault has been
rectified. Believing the same, the victim went to the pump shed room at
about 2.00 pm and switched on the electric motor. However, he was
electrocuted and thrown off the pump set room. The neighbours have
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 2 of 8
C.M.A.No.2698 of 2016
taken the victim to hospital but he was declared brought dead. It is in
this context, the respondent has filed the above said E.C.No.34 of 2013
before the Commissioner for Workmen compensation praying to award
appropriate compensation for the death of her son.
3. The appellant resisted the claim petition by mainly contending
that the victim was not employed by him. There was no employer-
employee relationship between him and the deceased. The allegation that
the victim was paid Rs.300/- per day as daily wage has been stoutly
refuted by the appellant. According to the appellant, the deceased
Maniyan was employed on daily wage basis under the National Rural
Employment Scheme and her son, the deceased was also employed
thereof. Further, the deceased used to bring his cattle to the well
belonged to the appellant and the appellant also permitted the deceased to
feed the cattle with water from his well. While so, the claim for
compensation payable by the appellant is not proper. The appellant is not
liable to pay compensation to the respondent for the death of her son.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 3 of 8
C.M.A.No.2698 of 2016
4. Before the Commissioner, on behalf of the claimant, she
examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. The appellant
examined himself as RW1 along with another witness as RW2 and
marked two documents under Exs. R1 and R2. The Commissioner, upon
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held that the deceased
was employed under the appellant and therefore, the claimant is entitled
for compensation to be paid by the appellant. As regards quantum, a
total sum of Rs.3,17,883/- was awarded by taking the sum of Rs.3,450/-
as monthly wages and directed the appellant to pay the said amount with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the order dated
15.09.2015, the appellant has come up with this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently
contend that the deposition of PW2 has not been considered by the
Commissioner while passing the order dated 15.09.2015. PW2 is an
independent witness who has deposed that the deceased was not
employed with the appellant, however, the Commissioner, without
adverting to the deposition of RW2, has passed the order dated
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 4 of 8
C.M.A.No.2698 of 2016
15.09.2015 which is legally not sustainable. The learned counsel further
submitted that the allegation that there was some fault in the electric
motor and after rectifying it the appellant alleged to have directed the
deceased to switch on the motor has not been proved by any independent
witness. There was no employer-employee relationship between the
appellant and the deceased, but the Commissioner, on sympathy, passed
the order directing the appellant to pay the compensation. In any event,
the deposition of the appellant/RW1 and the independent witness RW2
has been grossly ignored by the Commissioner while passing the order
dated 15.09.2015 and prayed for allowing this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent herein/claimant would
support the order passed by the Commissioner. He would submit that the
employer-employee relationship has been proved through the deposition
of the respondent, as PW1. The averments made in the Claim Petition
has been substantiated not only through oral evidence but also through
documentary evidence. The Commissioner, on appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.3,17,863/- for the death
of 41 year old son of the respondent and it does not call for interference
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 5 of 8
C.M.A.No.2698 of 2016
by this Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed
for dismissal of this appeal.
7. Heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials on
record. It is not in dispute that the son of the claimant died due to
electrocution, which is evident from the postmortem report under Ex.P5.
It is also not in dispute that the deceased was lying motionless in the land
belonging to the appellant. According to the claimant, during the course
of his employment with the appellant, death occurred. But it is the case
of the appellant that out of humanitarian gesture, he permitted the
deceased to feed his cattle through the well water in his land. The
deceased died in the land belonging to the appellant. PW1 in her
deposition has stated that for about 9 years, the deceased was employed
under the appellant. Such statement of the PW1 has not been proved to
be false during her cross-examination. Even in the complaint given by
one Sathish, based on which the First Information Report under Ex.P3
was registered, it was clearly stated that during the course of his
employment, the victim died in the land owned by the appellant herein.
In fact, when the appellant was cross-examined, he admitted that the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 6 of 8
C.M.A.No.2698 of 2016
deceased was under his employment and it was the deceased who was
maintaining his garden. This piece of deposition of the appellant is
sufficient to show that there was employer-employee relationship between
the appellant and the deceased. On the basis of such deposition of the
appellant himself in his cross-examination coupled with the deposition of
PW1 and the documents marked on behalf of the respondent, the
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has awarded a just and fair
compensation for the death of the son of the respondent herein.
However, the rate of interest awarded by the Commissioner of Workmen's
Compensation appears to be on the higher side and therefore, the rate of
interest is reduced from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a.
8. Therefore, the appellant is directed to deposit the entire awad
amount along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.from the date of petition
till the date of deposit within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the
respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount along with
interest.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 7 of 8
C.M.A.No.2698 of 2016
J.NISHA BANU,J.
kkd
9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
08.04.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking : Non speaking order
kkd
To
The Workmen's Compensation-I
( Deputy Commissioner Labour) Coimbatore).
C.M.A.No.2698 of 2016
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 8 of 8
