Madras High Court
K. Rajan vs M/S.Siva Tea Industry on 5 April, 2023
1 C.M.A.No.935 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
C.M.A.No.935 of 2013
K. Rajan ...Appellant
Versus
1.M/s.Siva Tea Industry,
Bangalorai,
Kattabettu Post, Kotagiri, The Nilgiris.
2. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Johnson Square, Kotagiri Post,
The Nilgiris. ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated
05.05.2005 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor in W.C.No.94 of 2022.
For Appellant : Mr. A. Bobblie
For Respondents : Mr. D.Bhaskaran for R2
: No Appearance for R1
*****
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated
05.05.2005 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor in W.C.No.94 of 2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The case of the appellant herein is that the appellant was working
in the first respondent's factory as an electrician. When he was working in
C.T.C. Machine in the 1st respondent's factory, his right hand got into the
machine and he sustained grievous injuries in his right hand. Immediately,
he was rushed to the K.M.F. Mission Hospital, Kotagiri and later, he was
admitted to Sheela Clinic Coimbatore. Due to injury sustained in the 1st
respondent's factory, during the course of employment, he preferred W.C.
No.94 of 2002 under the provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
seeking for compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- from the 1st respondent factory.
After having heard the learned counsel for both parties and considering the
oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour dismissed the W.C.No.94 of 2002 by order dated
05.05.2005 holding that the doctors concerned were not examined to prove
the disability of the petitioner and treatment given to the petitioner. Being
aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 05.05.2005 passed by the Trial
Court, the injured workman/applicant has filed the present appeal to set
aside the same.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
Deputy Commissioner of Labour failed to see that the appellant was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sustained grievous injuries on the right hand in the course of his
employment hours while working in CTC Machine in the 1st respondent's
Factory. Further, the petitioner/appellant herein has filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 to
substantiate the evidence of treatment and disability sustained by him.
Without considering the oral and documentary evidence placed before the
Trial Court on the side of the petitioner in a proper manner, the Deputy
Commissioner of Labour dismissed the claim petition by order dated
05.05.2005 holding that the doctors who had given treatment and issued the
disability certificate were not examined before the Court below.
4. It has been further submitted that the appellant sustained grievous
injuries in his right hand during the course of his employment. He was
given treatment in two hospitals and was assessed disability @ 37% by the
doctors. Accordingly, the appellant has filed the documents under Ex.A1 to
Ex.A7 before the Labour Court to substantiate his case. Hence, the
petitioner is entitled to the compensation claimed by him under Workmen
compensation Act. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner erred in dismissing
the claim petition without deciding the quantum of compensation amount
on his own. Hence, he seeks this Court to set aside the order dated
05.05.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in W.C. No.94 of 2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the
Deputy Commissioner has rightly dismissed the claim petition, even though
the Labour Court ordered for examination of Doctor who had issued
disability certificate to the petitioner, the concerned doctor was not
examined before the Court below. Further, while the petitioner has
produced the medical records for taking treatment from one Doctor
Mr.S.Rajapandian, the disability certificate @37% was issued by another
doctor by name Mr.Perumal. In the event of this contra evidence, the Trial
Court has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner. Hence,
this Court need not to interfere with the same.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel
for the 2nd respondent. There is no representation for the 1st respondent
despite notice was served.
7. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner/appellant
herein has sustained grievous injuries while working in CTC Machine in
the 1st respondent's factory. Due to the injury, the petitioner was given
treatment and issued disability certificate by the Doctors. Accordingly, the
petitioner/appellant herein produced the Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 for having taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
treatment in the Hospital. While being so, mere producing the medical
records without examining the concern doctors who had given treatment
and issued the disability certificate, the claim petition of the petitioner
cannot be considered. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly
dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein.
8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
findings of the Labour Court and confirms the order dated 05.05.2005
passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner.
9.In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No
Costs.
05.04.2023
Lbm
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/no
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
Lbm
To:
1.The Workmen Compensation Commissioner/
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor
2.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A.No.935 of 2013
05.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
