Dismissed

Southern Railways v. Sindhu.K.R

Kerala HC11 Jul 2019MFA (ECC)/8/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Southern Railways against the Commissioner's order granting compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased railway porter. The Court held that the deceased was an employee under the Railway Administration and confirmed the 12% simple interest award under Section 4A of the Act.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by Southern Railways against the Commissioner's order awarding compensation and interest was dismissed.

Southern Railways Vs Sindhu.K.R — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

MFA.No.8 of 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-02-2018 IN ECC 183/2014 of THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY :

¶10

SOUTHERN RAILWAYS, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, TRIVANDRUM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.B.RAJESH (KOTTAYAM)

¶12

RESPONDENTA/APPLICANTS:

¶13

1 SINDHU.K.R, W/O LATE VIJAYAKUMAR.P.K, AGED 49 YEARS, PUTHIYANIKATHIL VEEDU, KATIKUNNU.P.O, CHEMBU, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

2 ANANDU.P.V, S/O LATE VIJAYAKUMAR.P.K, AGED 18 YEARS,REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SINDHU.K.R. -DO- -DO-

¶15

3 DEVICHANDANA.P.V, D/O.LATE VIJAYAKUMAR.P.K, AGED 16 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SINDHU.K.R. -DO- -DO-

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.JOLLY JOHN.

¶17

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

M.F.A (ECC) No.8 of 2019 2

¶19

A.HARIPRASAD & SHIRCY.V, J J.

¶20

M.F.A (ECC) No.8 of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 11th day of July, 2019

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

A.HARIPRASAD, J

¶24

Heard the learned Standing counsel for the Railways, who

¶25

preferred this appeal and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

Challenge in this appeal is against an order passed by the

¶27

Commissioner for Employee's Compensation (Industrial Tribunal),

¶28

Alappuzha, in E.C.C No.183 of 2014 (WCC No.34 of 2012). Respondents

¶29

are the legal heirs of deceased Vijayakumar.P.K, who sustained an injury

¶30

during the course of his employment on 03-03-2008. Deceased

¶31

Vijayakumar was a licensed railway porter working in Ernakulam Junction

¶32

M.F.A (ECC) No.8 of 2019 3

¶33

Railway Station. His badge number was 229. On 03-03-2008, while he

¶34

was engaged in his work under the supervision and control of the officers

¶35

of the Railway Administration, he sustained injuries and was hospitalized.

¶36

Actually when he was lifting a heavy load, it slipped and fell on his neck and shoulders, causing severe injuries to his internal organs. Although he

¶37

was taken to a nearby hospital and treated, he succumbed to the injuries on

¶38

11-03-2008. The applicants/respondents contended that the average

¶39

family income of deceased per month was Rs.9.000/-. He was aged 41

¶40

years at the time of accident. The applicants/respondents claimed

¶41

compensation from the Railway Administration.

¶42

The appellant/Railway Administration opposed the claim by

¶43

contending that deceased Vijayakumar was only a licensed porter and was

¶44

not an employee under the Railway Administration. Claimants are not

¶45

eligible to claim compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act

¶46

M.F.A (ECC) No.8 of 2019 4

¶47

1923 ( in short 'the Act'). There was no negligence on the part of the

¶48

appellant in causing the accident. For that reason also, they are not liable to

¶49

pay compensation.

¶50

The Commissioner, after considering the testimony of two

¶51

witnesses on the side of the applicants and Exts.A1 to A7 found that the deceased was an employee under the Railway Administration and therefore

¶52

the Act applied to the claim. On calculation, it was found that the applicants/respondents are entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.3,72,740/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand and Seven Hundred and Forty Only) with 12% interest per annum from 11-03-2008.

¶53

Learned Standing Counsel for the Railways contended that the

¶54

finding of the Commissioner is legally unsustainable. Per contra, learned

¶55

counsel for the respondents supported the findings on the basis of a

¶56

decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Narayanan v.

¶57

M.F.A (ECC) No.8 of 2019 5

¶58

Southern Railway (1980 ACJ 48) . An identical question was considered by

¶59

this Court in that decision. The observations in the judgment

¶60

unambiguously establish that deceased Vijayakumar should be treated as an employee under the Railway Administration and therefore the appellant

¶61

is liable to pay compensation on account of his death due to injuries

¶62

sustained during the course of his employment. The decision in

¶63

Narayanan's case (supra) clearly shows valid reasons for holding that a

¶64

Railway porter is an employee of the Railway Administration. With great

¶65

respect, we follow the above decision and find that there is nothing illegal

¶66

in the approach made by the Commissioner in finding that the respondents

¶67

are entitled to get compensation.

¶68

Regarding the quantum, learned Standing Counsel for the

¶69

Railways contended that the Commissioner should not have granted

¶70

interest at the rate of 12%. Having regard to Section 4A of the Act, it can be

¶71

M.F.A (ECC) No.8 of 2019 6

¶72

seen that the Commissioner is bound to grant 12% simple interest for the delayed payment of compensation. It is made clear that 12% interest

¶73

mentioned in the judgment of the Commissioner should be read as simple interest. We confirm the order passed by the Commissioner in E.C.C

¶74

No.183 of 2014 and find no merit in the appeal. Hence, it is dismissed.

¶75

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶76

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶77

SHIRCY.V, JUDGE

¶78

amk

Southern Railways v. Sindhu.K.R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Southern Railways v. Sindhu.K.R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Kunhi Mohammed Vs State Wakf Board

Government of Kerala Vs v.Muhammed Nissar

Ramesh.K.S Vs Mareena Josepheena

Rajeevan Vs Joy

Jasu Bukhari Vs Nettoor Mahallu Muslim Jama Ath

Antony Vs Jacob George Paul