Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: employee compensation act in Rajasekaran vs A.Selvi Ananthi on 1 October, 2018Matching Fragments
3. The defence of the respondent is that the petitioner was engaged only as a helper and she has no duty to meddle with any machineries, that the petitioner, on 18.08.2015, without any permission from the authority and without following the safety instructions issued, has voluntarily involved in the accident, that the alleged accident was occurred due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the petitioner and also her failure to follow the safety instructions issued, that the respondent has spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses of the petitioner, that the injuries caused to the petitioner were all cured by providing best https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis treatment by the respondnet management, that there is no physical disability or loss of earning capacity due to the alleged accident and that therefore, the respondent is not liable for the claim and the petitoner is not entitled to get any compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The Substantial Questions of Law that arise for consideration in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows:
(1) Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the loss of earning capacity at 45% by only taking note of the disability fixed at 51% by P.W.2 and by not taking into account Schedule-I to the Employee's Compensation Act?
9. As already pointed out, according to P.W.2, there was amputation of two phalanx of left hand index finger and for the right hand, there was shortening of middle finger, loss of all phalanx in the right finger and loss of phalanx in the little finger. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, even assuming that there is a loss of three fingers of right hand, even then percentage of loss of earning capacity can only be 30%. But admittedly, there was no amputation of three fingers of the right hand of the claimant. Considering the above, the partial permanent disability fixed at 40% and the consequent loss of earning capacity fixed at 45% by the Tribunal are not only improper, but not in accordance with the Schedule to the Employee's Compensation Act.
14. It is pertinent to note that if any workman is unable to establish correct salary with acceptable evidence, then the Tribunal is duty bound https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to adopt the minimum wages as notified by the Central Government under Section 4(1)(B) of the Act and the Employee's Compensation Act, being a welfare legislation, the compensation is to be calculated by adopting the minimum wages as notified by the Central Government. Considering the above, the monthly salary fixed by the Tribunal at Rs. 8,000/- cannot be found fault with.