Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu State Transport vs N. Vadivel …Respondent on 2 June, 2025
C.M.A.No.2977 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
C.M.A.No.2977 of 2022 and
C.M.P. Nos.23122 & 23125 of 2022
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation (Villupuram) Limited,
Kancheepuram Region,
Ponerikarai,
Bangalore Highways,
Kancheepuram. …Appellant
Vs.
N. Vadivel …Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of
Workmen Compensation Act, praying to set aside the Award passed by the
learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation dated 12.10.2021 in W.C.
No.32 of 2018 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II) at Chennai-6.
For Appellant : Mr.P. Dinesh Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.V. Ajay Khose
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
C.M.A.No.2977 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The opposite party in W.C. No.32/18 on the file of the
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of
Labour-II), Chennai-6, is the appellant in this appeal. The claimant thereon is
the respondent herein.
2. The respondent/ claimant has preferred the claim application
before the above referred authority claiming compensation for the injuries
sustained by him.
3. The short facts of the matter which need to be stated for the
purpose of the present appeal are as follows:
3.1. The respondent/claimant joined the services of the opposite
party Transport Corporation as a conductor on 14.09.1993, on temporary
basis. He was made permanent by an order dated 23.09.1997, with effect
from 26.02.1997.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
3.2. The respondent/claimant was working at Kalpakkam Depot.
On 23.01.2015 he was assigned duty in route No.222K/A in the bus bearing
No. TN 21 N 1679 which was plying between Kalpakkam and Trichy.
3.3. The respondent/claimant states that while their bus was going
on the GST Road, just opposite to Villupuram Depot-II, a pedestrian crossed
the road from the right side; climbed the median partition and jumped into the
left side of the road. The driver of the bus, in which the respondent/claimant
was working as a conductor, in order to avoid the accident with above
pedestrian, tried to turn the bus to the left side. However, he lost his control
and the bus was dragged to the left side and came to halt after hitting a
tamarind tree on the left side of the road.
3.4 The respondent/claimant states that in the above accident, he
was thrown out from the bus, fell down on the National Highways, became
unconscious and was admitted to the Government District Headquarters
Hospital, Villupuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
3.5. After receiving some first aid from the Government Hospital,
the respondent/claimant was admitted to a private hospital, namely, Parvathy
Hospital, Chrompet, Chennai, as inpatient on 24.12.2014. He was discharged
from the hospital on on 29.12.2014.
3.6. The respondent/claimant sustained severe bone fractures and
injuries on both of his hands above his wrist and also sustained injuries on his
head on the left side above the ear, on his left cheek near his mouth and also
on his chin/lower jaw.
3.7. The respondent/claimant states that while he was admitted in
the above hospital, he underwent surgery and treatment for the injuries he
sustained on his hands and he was fitted with plates and screws to join the
bones. So far as the head injury and other injuries, he was given only
medicines and treatment. Further, the above head injury has also resulted in
neurological problem. Further, he is still having pain and suffering and he is
still taking continuous treatment and medicines. Further, he isunable to stand
as earlier even for a short while.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
3.8. The respondent/claimant states that he met with above accident
during the course of and arising out of his employment.
3.9. The Taluk Headquarters Police Station, Villupuram, registered
an FIR relating to the above accident in Crime number 806/2014 on
24.12.2014.
3.10. The respondent/claimant states that on the date of accident, he
was 41 years 9 months and 20 days old. His monthly salary as on the date of
accident was Rs.21,069/- per month. Later the monthly salary was revised as
per the settlement dated 13.04.2015 with effect from 01.09.2013
retrospectively. After such revision, his monthly salary as on the date of
accident was Rs.25,095 per month. However, his salary is restricted to
Rs.8,000/- per month as per the ceiling. His completed years of age on the
last birthday, immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell
due, is 41 years. The applicant became unfit for the post of conductor which
he was holding at the time of accident. He has suffered 100% total permanent
disability/loss of earning. Therefore, the respondent/claimant is entitled to a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
lumpsum compensation of Rs.8,70,576/- (8,000/- x 60/100 x 181.37 =
Rs.8,70,576/-) as per Section 4B of the Employees Compensation Act (herein
after referred to as 'the Act').
3.11. The respondent/claimant, therefore, filed W.C. No.32/18
before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Deputy Commissioner
of Labour-II), Chennai-6, praying to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of
Rs.8,70,576/- towards lumpsum compensation payable under Section 4(b) of
the Act with interest for the above sum from the date of due to the date of
actual payment as provided under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act and penalty
amount as provided under Section 4A(3)(b) of the Act and also to pay a sum
of Rs.2,31,216.65/- towards medical expenses already incurred and for future
medical expenses.
4. The said application has been resisted by the appellant herein by
filing a counter stating that the said application has been filed belatedly after
lapse of two years from the date of the accident without any sufficient reasons
for the delay. It is submitted that the alleged accident took place due to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
negligence of the pedestrian and the driver of the vehicle was at no fault.
Hence the appellant Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the
claimant. It is further submitted that the respondent/claimant did not suffer
any disability and loss of income. Hence, the Claim Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
5. However, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai-6, has held that the accident
took place in the course of employment and that the respondent/claimant is
entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,51,792/-.
6. Challenging the said Award, the opposite party in the said
application has preferred the present appeal.
7. Mr.P. Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that the learned Authority ought not to have entertained the
application after two years of the accident and ought to have dismissed the
same on the ground of laches. His further contention is that the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
Authority erroneously relied on the FIR given by a third party and that the
alleged incident was not supported by any document to prove the alleged
accident. Further it has been urged that the interest awarded by the Authority
at the rate of 12% is highly excessive. Thus, the sum and substance of the
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is not
liable to pay any compensation to the respondent/claimant.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/claimant contended that the respondent/claimant suffered injuries
during the course of employment and therefore, the appellant herein is liable
to pay compensation. It is further contended that the complainant who lodged
the FIR, also travelled in the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged
accident and also suffered injuries and the same has been considered by the
Authority and therefore, the Award passed by the Authority is well reasoned
which requires no interference of this Court.
9. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
10. It is not in dispute that the claimant/respondent was an
employee under the appellant at the time of alleged accident. The
claimant/respondent has also produced Ex.P4/ID card, to establish the same.
The claimant/respondent has marked Ex.P8 to establish that he was provided
with alternative employment on 17.11.2017 because of the injuries sustained
by him. Therefore, the Authority came to the conclusion that the
claimant/respondent has suffered injuries in the course of employment and is
entitled for compensation. The said conclusion has been arrived at based
upon the materials on record and the plea that has been taken by the
claimant/respondent.
11. An appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act
will lie only if there is a substantial question of law. The questions of law that
have been raised in this appeal are as follows:
1) "Whether the lower authority is justified in awarding Rs.10,51,792/- as
compensation in the absence of any evidence or proof?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
2) Whether the Lower Authority can refer the FIR lodged by a third party
to the incident to consider the case of the respondent?
3) Whether the Lower Authority is justified in entertaining the application
under the Workmen Compensation Act after a lapse of two years from
the date of occurrence?"
12. Admittedly, these questions of law are more of factual aspects
than on questions of law. Since it has been found by the Authority that the
claimant/respondent suffered injuries during the course of employment and a
sum of Rs.10,51,792/- has been awarded on the basis of the materials placed
before it, the said findings arrived at by the Authority need not be set aside in
this appeal, if no substantial question of law arises. Even on facts, if I am
able to come to such a conclusion opposite to the one taken by the Authority
under the Workmen Compensation Act, still, the same cannot be set aside
unless and otherwise some substantial questions of law are involved.
Therefore, I am of the considered view that what is raised in the present
appeal is the questions of fact and not questions of law. There can be no
dispute that the respondent/claimant suffered injuries in the course of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
employment. Since there was no occasion for him to be in the vehicle
belonging to the appellant unless he had been employed as a conductor in the
said vehicle, it is futile to contend otherwise. It is the specific case of the
claimant/respondent that the said complaint was lodged by a person who
travelled in the same bus and also suffered injury in the said accident. The
objections to the claim based on the delayed FIR, therefore, deserves no
consideration unless evidence is brought on record to elaborate that the
alleged accident did not occur as narrated by the claimant/respondent. The
evidence brought on record establishes a greater probability that the alleged
accident has taken place as stated by the claimant/respondent. Therefore, the
contention raised by the appellant that the Lower Authority erred in
entertaining the claim application filed after a lapse of two years from the date
of accident is unsustainable. The Lower Authority has also condoned the
delay in filing the claim application by holding that there was sufficient
cause to condone the delay. Hence, the Lower Authority is justified in
entertaining the application under the Workmen Compensation Act even after
a lapse of two years from the date of occurrence. Moreover, the appellant has
not challenged the order passed in the condone delay petition. Hence, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
Lower Authority is justified in entertaining the claim application.
13. In view of the above discussions, the order dated 12.10.2021
passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (Deputy
Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai-6, in W.C. No.32/2018 is liable to be
confirmed and accordingly, the same is confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. The respondent/claimant is permitted to
withdraw the amount awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai-6 in W.C.
No.32/2018,dated 12.10.2021, by filing proper application.
02.06.2025
bga
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
To
1. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation
(Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II), Chennai-6
2. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
bga
C.M.A.No.2977 of 2022 and
C.M.P. Nos.23122 & 23125 of 2022
02.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 06:54:39 pm )
