Madras High Court
Prabhu vs Kandasamy on 8 January, 2024
C.M.A. No.3490 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR
C.M.A. No.3490 of 2021
Prabhu ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1. Kandasamy
2. The Manager,
New India Assurance Company Limited,
K.V.R.Complex, III Floor,
80 feet road, Senguthapuram,
Karur 639002. ... Respondents /Opposite parties
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen
Compensation Act, 1923, against the Award and Decree passed in E.C.
No.419 of 2017 dated 10.05.2021, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner
for Employees Compensation/Corporation of Labour, Coonoor.
For Appellant : M/s.S.Seethalakshmi
for Mr. C.Thangaraju
For R1 : No appearance
For R2 : M/s.S.R.Sumathy
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the employee
seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained by him
during the course of employment awarded in E.C. No.419 of 2017 dated
10.05.2021, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Employees
Compensation/Corporation of Labour, Coonoor.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to
hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the
Tribunal.
3. The case of the workmen is that he sustained employment
injury on 26.05.2017 at about 11.00 p.m., while unloading the limestone at
TNPL Cement Factory at karur. Immediately, he was admitted into various
hospitals and after taking treatment he has come forward with the claim
petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained
by him during the course of employment. According to the medical records,
he has sustained fracture on his left foot.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The first respondent is the employer. The second respondent
is the Insurance Company. It is the admitted case that the workmen herein is
covered by the Insurance Policy and based on the insurance coverage, he
has approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner seeking compensation for
a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The first respondent - Employer has not contested
the claim and the second respondent -Insurance Company has disputed that
the injuries sustained by the claimant was not related to employment injury.
They have also disputed the disability sustained by the workmen.
5. Based on the evidences placed on record, the Deputy Labour
Commissioner has held that the claimant herein has sustained employment
injury and since no income proof has been adduced, based on the Central
Government Notification, fixed the notional income of the claimant as
Rs.8,000/- per month by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and by adopting
the factor prescribed under the Workmen Compensation Act and awarded
compensation.
6. Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded, the
employee has approached this Court by way of filing of this appeal and that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by raising substantial question of law that the monthly income fixed by the
claimant based on the Central Government Notification is not proper since
the employee was earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence
adoption of Central Government Notification for awarding compensation is
not proper. The learned counsel for the employee has further stated that
since the employee is a lorry driver by profession and his income is more
than Rs.15,000/- and the same has not been properly considered by the
Deputy Labour Commissioner while awarding compensation. Hence prays
to enhance the compensation by fixing monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. She
has also submitted that the medical expenses incurred was also not properly
ordered to be compensated.
7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted
that based on the evidences placed on record, the Deputy Labour
Commissioner has passed an award is proper. Hence, no need for
interference of the same by this Court.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and
also perused the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Eventhough, the employee claimed that he was earning a sum
of Rs.15,000/- per month as notional income but he has not proved his
income before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and he has not even taken
any steps to produce Salary Certificates by the first respondent, who is the
employer before the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Since no evidence has
been placed on record to prove the monthly income of the workmen, the
Labour Commissioner has applied Central Government Notification
prescribed maximum applicable income for the workmen, who suffered
injury or death. Accordingly, notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month was
taken up by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and this Court finds there is
no infirmity in the fixation of notional income and the same is hereby
confirmed.
10. The next contention with regard to the medical expenses
incurred by the employee/claimant is concerned, he has incurred a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/- immediately, after the accident and that he has requested to
grant additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for future medical expenses but
however, there was no evidence placed on record in support of the same.
The claimant has produced medical bills for a sum of Rs.41,725/- after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deducting Rs.1,000/- which was spent for medical legal services and
records, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has awarded a sum of
Rs.40,725/- as medical expenses. This Court is of the view that since the
compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses is only based on
the medical bills and no other materials have been produced to substantiate
the quantum of compensation claimed under the head medical expenses
including future medical expenses, this Court is of the view that no
interference is required for awarding medical expenses. Accordingly, this
Court finds no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the
claimant is dismissed. The Award and Decree passed in E.C. No.419 of
2017 dated 10.05.2021, by the Deputy Commissioner for Employees
Compensation/Corporation of Labour, Coonoor is hereby confirmed. There
shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.
08.01.2024
ssi
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation/
Commissioner of Labour,
Coonoor.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
ssi
08.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
