Dismissed

Muhammed Sajil.K.M v. the Managing Director and Another

Kerala HC14 Mar 2024MFA (ECC)/9/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two appeals challenging a Workmen's Compensation Order. The Court held that the Commissioner correctly found an employer-employee relationship and awarded appropriate compensation, rejecting claims of non-employment and excessive damages.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals preferred under MFA (ECC) Nos.9 & 33 of 2011 were dismissed. The compensation amount deposited was directed to be released to the claimant.

Muhammed Sajil.K.M Vs the Managing Director… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945
MFA (ECC) NO. 9 OF 2011

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2010 IN WCC NO.10 OF 2007 OF W.C.C.,
ERNAKULAM

¶6

APPELLANT/APPLICANT:

¶7

MUHAMMED SAJIL.K.M
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED USMAN,, KOLOTHIDAMTHATTU
HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O., VELLOOR, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.
SRI.S.JAMAL
SRI.BIMAL K.NATH
SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR
SRI.SREEVALSAN.V

¶9

RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:

¶10

1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PVT. LIMITED, M.G.ROAD, THEVARA P.O.- 682 013, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2 THE BRANCH MANAGER INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PVT.LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH, ONE WAY JUNCTION,MARKET P.O.-686 673, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADV SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)

¶13

THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 14.03.2024, ALONG
WITH MFA (ECC).33/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

MFA (ECC) Nos.9 & 33 OF 2011

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶19

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1945
MFA (ECC) NO. 33 OF 2011

¶20

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2010 IN WCC NO.10 OF 2007 OF
W.C.C.,ERNAKULAM

¶21

APPELLANT/1ST OPPOSITE PARTIES:

¶22

1THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S INDUS MOTOR COMPANY,PVT.LTD,
M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
2THE BRANCH MANAGER,
INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PVT.LTD, MUVATTUPUZHA
BRANCH,ONE WAY JUNCTION,, MARKET.P.O,
MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶23

BY ADV SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER(EDAPPALLY)

¶24

RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

¶25

MOHAMMED SAJIL K.M,
S/O MOHAMMED USMAN,
KOLATHIDANTHATTU HOUSE,MEVALLOOR.P.O,VELLOR,
VAIKOM,KOTTAYAM, PIN-683 031.

¶26

BY ADVS.
SRI.BIMAL K.NATH
SRI.S.JAMAL
SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR

¶27

THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 14.03.2024,
ALONG WITH MFA (ECC).9/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

MFA (ECC) Nos.9 & 33 OF 2011

¶29

¶30

T.R.RAVI, J .

¶31

-----------------------MFA (ECC) Nos.9 & 33 of 2011

¶32

------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2024.

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The above two appeals are preferred by the claimant

¶35

and the 1^st opposite party respectively, in W.C.C. No.10/2007 before the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner, Ernakulam. The case of the claimant is that he was employed as a Mechanic under the 1^st opposite party and he had joined service in 2003. He claims that he was transferred to Muvattupuzha Branch, which was newly started, in the year 2005. On 27.04.2006, it is stated that the claimant was deputed, to take a vehicle which had met with an accident and was lying in the Kodakara Police Station, with the help of a recovery vehicle. He states that he had gone in the recovery vehicle along with its Driver and while returning with the vehicle , the recovery vehicle met with an

¶36

MFA (ECC) Nos.9 & 33 OF 2011

¶37

¶38

accident resulting in injury to the index an d middle fingers of the claimant. A claim was made for Rs.10 lakhs. The opposite parties denied employer-employee relationship. It is contended that the claimant was a student in a training institute conducted by the opposite party and he was never an employee. The Identity Card produced by the claimant is disputed and it was contended that the same is concocted for the purpose of the case. It is submitted that no documentary evidence to show that the claima nt was employed by the opposite party has been produced and no co-worker has been examined before the Commissioner to prove the fact. The Commissioner allowed the claim and aw arded a sum of ₹67,813/- as compensation along with 12% interest. The claimant has challenged the order of the Commissioner contending that the quantum of compensation is meagre. The opposite parties have challenged the order contending that no amount was liable to be ordered as

¶39

MFA (ECC) Nos.9 & 33 OF 2011

¶40

¶41

compensation since the claimant was not an employee.

¶42

Heard Sri.S.Jamal counsel for the appellant in MFA (ECC)No.9 of 2011 and Sri.P.K.Aboobacker, counsel for the appellant in MFA (ECC)No.33 of 2011.

¶43

The Commissioner has considered the entire evidence on record and found that there is sufficient evidence to show that the claimant was an employee. It is true that the claimant was not produced any salary certificate as proof of payment of salary. At the same time, he has produced two Identity Cards, one which was issued while he was allegedly working in City Branch at Ernakulam and the other which was issued when he was sent for training to Coimbatore for a period of three weeks. Even though the claimant was cross examined at length, there is nothing to shake the credibility of the statements made by him. On the side of the opposite parties, DW1, who is the power of attorney holder, was examined. The witness does not give any clarity with

¶44

MFA (ECC) Nos.9 & 33 OF 2011

¶45

¶46

regard to the contention taken by the opposite party that the claimant was a student. Only vague answers are given to the questions specifically posed with regard to the training institute. The specific contention of the claimant that he had travelled from Muvattupuzha to Kodakara in the recovery vehicle belonging to the 1^st opposite party driven by its driver is not seen specifically disputed. Except disputing the accident or knowledge of the accident, there is no explanation with regard to the specific contention that the recovery vehicle belonged to the opposite party. I find that the Commissioner has considered the evidence on record from the correct perspective and no interference i s wa rranted in appeal. The appeal filed by the opposite party [MFA (ECC)No.33 of 2011] is hence liable to be rejected. As far as the appeal filed by the claimant [MFA (ECC)No.9 of 2011] is concerned, it is seen from the order of the Commissioner that the compensation has been arrived at by following

¶47

MFA (ECC) Nos.9 & 33 OF 2011

¶48

¶49

the method prescribed in Section 4 of the Workmens' Compensation Act. The fixation of 14% as disability is also in accordance with the schedule to the Act. The claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act can only be for a compensation as prescribed in the Act and the Commissioner has granted the said amount. Hence no interference is warranted in this appeal. The appeal filed by the claimant also deserves to be dismissed.

¶50

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. The amount which has been deposited before the Commissioner shall be immediately released to the claimant.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

¶53

mpm

Muhammed Sajil.K.M v. the Managing Director and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Sajil.K.M v. the Managing Director and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs v.M.Shajumon

Anju M.S. Vs Christopher Shaji

Dhanyan Vs T.K.Dileepkumar

Harshad M, Vs John Jose Mathew

M/S.Himavarsha Kuries Private Limited (in Liquidation) Vs Saritha.U.K

M/S.Himavarsha Kuries Private Limited(in Liquidation) Vs Brijith Vincent