Madras High Court
Uthiran vs Sekar on 9 April, 2014
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.04.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR C.M.A.No.1045 of 2014 1. Uthiran 2. Chandra 3. Palani 4. Suresh 5. Senthil ... Appellants ..vs.. Sekar ... Respondent This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, in W.C.No.256 of 2003 dated 08.02.2013. For Appellants : Mr.R.Margabandhu JUDGMENT
Respondent, stated to have been engaged by the appellants, to repair a pumpset, sustained injuries in the left hand and ring finger and little finger were crushed, due to the fall of a motor and pumpset. For the injuries, he has taken treatment in Government Hospital, Gudiyatham, and thereafter, referred to Stanley Hospital, Chennai. Three fingers of the left hand, viz., middle finger, ring finger and little finger were removed. After sending notices to the appellants, and not compensated, he has filed W.C.No.256 of 2003 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai-6, claiming compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-.
2. The first appellant/first opposite party, has filed a counter affidavit disputing the Employer-Employee relationship. He has denied the manner of accident and the injuries sustained by the respondent. It is also contended that there was no motor or pumpset in Meenoor Village, in which the land is located. Hospitalisation and the pecuniary loss suffered, were also disputed. In addition to the above, the opposition parties have submitted that the petitioner was a beedi worker and not engaged by them. For the above said reasons, they have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
3. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour- I, Chennai, the respondent examined himself as AW.1 and reiterated the manner of accident and the injuries sustained. AW.2 is the Doctor, who issued Ex.P4 Disability Certificate. AW.3 is the Record Clerk, Office of the Tahsildar, Gudiyatham, examined on behalf of the respondent/claimant. Ex.P1 - certificate issued by the Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai, Ex.P2 Lawyer's notice, Ex.P3 Reply given by the opposition parties /appellants, Ex.P4Disability Certificate, Ex.P5-Chitta to prove that the opposition parties/appellants own lands, have been marked by the respondent. RW.1 is the first opposition party. Ex.R1 Legal notice sent by the respondent and Ex.R2 Reply notice, have been marked, on the side of the opposition parties.
4. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Deputy Commissioner of LabourI, Chennai, found that there existed Employer-Employee relationship. Having regard to the sequence of events, medical evidence, the said Authority held that the accident occurred during the course of employment, when the respondent was asked to repair the pumpset. Having regard to the specific statement of AW.3, Mr.Kumarasamy, Record Clerk, Office of the Tahsildar, Gudiyatham, to the effect that as per the patta and chitta, Ex.P5, the opposition parties owned lands measuring 2.20.30 Hectares and that there was also a Well and pumpset, in the said lands, the Deputy Commissioner of LabourI, Chennai, by further observing that the accident has occurred when the motor and pumptset, fell on the respondent, proceeded to compute the loss of future income, on account of amputation of middle finger, ring finger and little finger, by taking into consideration, the extent of disablement assessed by AW.2 Doctor and by applying the structured formula, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai has awarded Rs.77,543/- with a direction to the opposition parties to deposit the said amount to the credit of W.C.No.256 of 2003 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, he has ordered interest, at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of the accident, on the quantum of compensation determined.
5. While challenging the award, the opposition parties/appellants have framed the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether it is established that the injured is a workman under the appellants; and (ii) Whether the injury sustained was during the course of employment, and in support of the same, contended that in the absence of First Information Report, or any other document, THE Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, has erred in concluding that there was an accident. The appellants have further contended that when AW.1 in his chief examination had admitted that there was no borewell, the Authority ought not to have arrived at a conclusion, as if there was an accident, arising out of and during the course of employment.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the materials available on record.
7. Adverting to the above, it could be seen from the award that AW.3, Record Clerk, Office of the Tahsildar, Gudiyatham, on the basis of the entries in Ex.P5-Chitta and Patta for the lands owned by the appellants, has categorically deposed that Mr.Dasarathan and Mr.Uthiran, S/o.Govindasamy Gounder, owned 2.20.30 Hectares of lands with a pumpset. Though the opposition parties / appellants have adduced evidence that there was no borewell in the lands in S.No.1612, entries in Ex.P5 Chitta makes it clear that there was a Well and pumpset. According to the respondent, though he was a beedi worker, occasionally, he would do other jobs also, and on 18.02.2003, when the opposition parties/appellants, asked him to repair the motor and pumpset, he had gone to the lands and while lifting the motor and pumpset, they fell on his palm and as a result of which, fingers and toes were crushed and badly damaged. In order to prove that he was treated in Stanley Medical College Hospital, Chennai, for the injuries, which resulted in amputation of little finger, the respondent has marked Ex.P1 certificate, issued by the said hospital. AW.2 Doctor has assessed the extent of disability as 21%. Finding of Employer-Employee relationship has been arrived at on the principles of preponderance of probabilities. Strict proof of evidence is not required, in cases arising out of tortious liability. Therefore, the contention of the opposition parties/appellants that no First Information Report has been registered, cannot be countenanced. It could be visualised that since the accident has occurred without there being any criminal intention, on the part of the opposition parties/ appellants, first information report would not have been lodged. It could be further deduced that in a village, engagement of workman to repair a motor or pumpset is not uncommon. Even assuming that the respondent was a beedi worker, still engagement of such worker to do other works, cannot be ruled out, if he was capable of doing other work. Giving a complaint to the police would only set the criminal law in motion and that would have been avoided by both parties, for the reason stated supra. In the criminal case, the purpose is to prosecute. When there was no criminal intention by the appellants, to commit any offence, the question of giving a complaint against them does not arise. The chain of events, after the accident, have been proved. Merely because, the police was not informed about the accident, that would not be a ground to reject the claim, where there is a tortious act. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Employer-Employee relationship has been substantiated. The injuries sustained, arising out of and during the course of employment, are also proved. Consequently, the respondent is entitled for compensation, which has been worked out, as per structured formula. There is no ground to interfere with the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour I, Chennai.
8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The appellants are directed to deposit the quantum of compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour I, Chennai, with proportionate interest, at the rate of 12% p.a., 30 days from the date of accident till realisation and costs to credit of W.C.No.256 of 2003 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the respondent is permitted to withdraw said amount.
09.04.2014 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mra To:
The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation
-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Chennai.
S.MANIKUMAR,J.
mra C.M.A.No.1045 of 2014 09.04.2014