Allowed

Chandrakala and Others v. the Secretary, District Co-Op. Hospital

Kerala HC8 Oct 2020MFA (ECC)/159/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal challenges a Commissioner's award that granted only personal injury compensation despite the deceased employee's subsequent death. The High Court allowed the appeal, directing the Commissioner to reconsider whether the death resulted directly from the original injuries based on tendered medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed. The Commissioner is directed to re-consider the question of entitlement to death compensation in light of Ext.A3 Medical Certificate within three months.

Chandrakala and Others Vs the Secretary… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

MFA.No.159 OF 2009

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-04-2008 IN WCC 150/2004 OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION AND DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KANNUR

¶7

APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS 2 TO 8:

¶8

1 CHANDRAKALA, W/O.LATE VISWANATHAN, CHOORITHADKA, P.O.BAMBRANA, ARIKADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶9

2 JAYASREE K., D/O. LATE VISWANATHAN, CHOORITHADKA, P.O.BAMBRANA, ARIKADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶10

3 ROOPASREE K., D/O. LATE VISWANATHAN, CHOORITHADKA, P.O.BAMBRANA, ARIKADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶11

4 ROOPITHA K., (MINOR), D/O. LATE VISWANATHAN, CHOORITHADKA, P.O.BAMBRANA, ARIKADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. REP.BY HER LEGAL, GUARDIAN (MOTHER), 1ST APPELLANT, HEREIN.

¶12

5 ANUSREE K., (MINOR), D/O. LATE VISWANATHAN, CHOORITHADKA, P.O.BAMBRANA, ARIKADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, REP.BY HER LEGAL, GUARDIAN (MOTHER), 1ST APPELLANT, HEREIN.

¶13

6 ASLESHROOPESH, (MINOR), D/O. LATE VISWANATHAN, CHOORITHADKA, P.O.BAMBRANA, ARIKADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, REP.BY HER LEGAL GUARDIAN (MOTHER), 1ST APPELLANT, HEREIN.

¶14

7 ANVITH K.V., (MINOR),S/O. LATE VISWANATHAN, CHOORITHADKA, P.O.BAMBRANA, ARIKADY VILLAGE, REP.BY HER LEGAL GUARDIAN (MOTHER), 1ST APPELLANT HEREIN.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.V.BIPIN

¶16

MFA.No.159 OF 2009 2

¶17

RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:

¶18

1 THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT CO-OP. HOSPITAL, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, KUMBLA.

¶19

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KASARAGOD.

¶20

R2 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

¶21

R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS

¶22

THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

MFA.No.159 OF 2009 3

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The dependents of the deceased Viswanathan, who claimed compensation for personal injuries u/s.22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 (for short the Act) has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 15.4.2008 on the ground that the compensation granted was confined to personal injuries alone, despite the fact that the deceased

¶26

subsequently died during the pendency of the original application in W.C.C.No.150 of 2004 as the direct result of the injuries.

¶27

Commissioner in W.C.C.No.150/2004 was that while he was driving an ambulance bearing Reg. No.KL 14 B 1932 owned by the opposite party No.1 on 22.7.2001, at about 7.30 pm, it capsized and he sustained grievous injuries.

¶28

MFA.No.159 OF 2009 4

¶29

The second opposite party insurance company contested the claim whereas the first opposite party, the owner of the offended vehicle admitted the employer-employee relationship.

¶30

On the side of the appellants, the widow of

¶31

the deceased was examined as AW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the contesting respondents and Exts.R1 and R2 were marked.

¶32

Though it was contended before the

¶33

Commissioner that the appellants were entitled to compensation for death as well since the death was the direct result of the injuries, the contention was rejected on the ground that no satisfactory evidence proving the alleged direct cause of death was proved. Sri.Viswananthan, the injured died on 15.4.2006, after four years.

¶34

respondent submitted that since the death was after

¶35

MFA.No.159 OF 2009 5

¶36

such a long interval of time, it is futile contended the cause of death was the injuries

¶37

sustained by the deceased. The learned counsel for the appellants reacting to this contention drew my attention to Ext.A3 medical certificate issued from Yenepoya Medical College Hospital, Mangalore. It is recited in the certificate that the injured died in the hospital due to septicemic

¶38

tibia fracture and haemetemetic. Based on the certificate, it is contended that the proximate cause of death has been proved and therefore, the

¶39

appellants were entitled to claim compensation for death of the injured.

¶40

I notice that though Ext.A3 was tendered in

¶41

evidence, it was not properly proved through the

¶42

author of the certificate. In the absence of satisfactory medical evidence being tendered, it is not possible to hold whether the death was the

¶43

MFA.No.159 OF 2009 6

¶44

direct result of the injuries despite the fact that the accident happened after a long interval of four years, in my opinion, the certificate ought to be proved by examining the medical officer concerned, who issued the certificate or other necessary means

¶45

and it has to be established by medical opinion that the death was the result of injury sustained by the injured.

¶46

Taking a liberal view of this matter and also considering the laudable objective of the Workmen's Compensation Act, I am of opinion that

¶47

the matter has to be re-examined by the Commissioner over again as to whether the cause of death was direct result of injuries sustained by the employee. For this purpose, the matter has go back to the Commissioner.

¶48

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The

¶49

Commissioner is directed to re-consider the

¶50

MFA.No.159 OF 2009 7

¶51

question as to whether the appellants are entitled to compensation for death of the deceased in the light of Ext.A3 Medical Certificate. Sufficient opportunity shall be given to parties on either side while deciding the issue as to whether the death was direct result of the injuries sustained by the deceased. The Commissioner will issue notice to the parties and dispose of this matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment in accordance with the directions as above.

¶52

Sd/- T.V.ANILKUMAR, JUDGE

¶53

Chandrakala and Others v. the Secretary, District Co-Op. Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakala and Others v. the Secretary, District Co-Op. Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvaraj Vs the State of Kerala

State Ofkerala, Rep.by Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Vs the Secretary, Nirmalgram Vannith Dairy Central Society

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Bhakaran

Thankam Vs Sumithra

Y.Praveen Vs Union of India

K.P.Abdul Latheef Vs T.K.Kunhabdulla Haji