Dismissed

The Unite India Insuurnace v. Arun S/O.Shyan Goundenpalayam

Madras HC9 Oct 2014CMA/2945/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging a compensation award under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Upholding the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation's finding of 60% disability despite a medical assessment of 48%, the Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the award amount of Rs. 2,26,689/-.

What did the court decide?

Compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in W.C.No.541 of 2002 is confirmed. Appellant directed to deposit award amount with interest within four weeks.

The Unite India Insuurnace Vs Arun S/O.Shyan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.10.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

C.M.A.No.2945 of 2004

¶6

and C.M.P.No.16640 of 2008

¶7

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 146, West Car Street, Thiruchengode.

¶8

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order of the Learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Salem made in W.C.No.541 of 2002 dated 01.07.2004.

¶9

JUDGMENT

¶10

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the insurance company challenging the order dated 01.07.2004 made in W.C.No.541 of 2002 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Salem.

¶11

The case of the respondent/claimant before the lower forum is that on 17.08.2002 at about 11.00 a.m., a rig unit lorry bearing Regn.No.Ka01/MB 4464 belonging to the 2^nd respondent was doing boring works near Palladam, Coimbatore District and while the respondent/claimant was doing cleaning works in the rig lorry, the rig rod slipped from the lorry and fell down on his right leg and sustained injuries on both bones of right leg. Since the accident had occurred only out of and in the course of his employment, he filed a claim petition for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.

¶12

Since the vehicle was insured with the appellant/insurance company by the owner of the vehicle, the claim was made against the employer/owner of the lorry as well as against the insurer of the said lorry viz. the appellant/insurance company. The appellant/insurance company denies the fact that the respondent/claimant was working as a cleaner and while he was on duty, he met with the accident and sustained fracture on his right leg.

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

In order to prove the claim on the side of the respondent/claimant, he examined himself as P.W.1 and Dr.R.Ramamoorthy was examined as P.W.2 and marked documents as Ex.P1 to P6. On the side of the insurance company, no one was examined and no document was marked as exhibits.

¶15

The Dy.Commissioner of Labour, after analysing the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that the is a relationship of employer and employee between the 2^nd respondent and the 1^st respondent/claimant and the accident had occurred only during the course of employment and thus passed an award for a sum of Rs.2,26,689/- and directed the appellant/insurance company to pay the compensation to the respondent/claimant. Hence, aggrieved over the said finding, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company.

¶16

It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance company that even though P.W.2, doctor has assessed the disability at 48%, the Authority below has arrived at a compensation by considering the disability at 60% and hence, the award passed by the Authority below has to be reduced.

¶17

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, I have carefully gone through the entire materials available on record and I find that the decision of the authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act is based on finding of fact and that the amount awarded by the authority below seems to be reasonable, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding rendered by the authority below and the same is liable to be confirmed.

¶18

In the result, the compensation awarded by the Dy. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Salem made in W.C.No.541 of 2002 dated 01.07.2004 is confirmed and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶19

The appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount alongwith interest, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already deposited. On such deposit, the respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount.

¶20

rgr

¶21

-s/d-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-II) Dt:18/12/2014

¶23

True Copy

¶24

Sub-Assitant Registrar

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

¶27

The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Salem.

¶28

The Record Keeper,

¶29

V.R. Records, High Court of Madras.

¶30

- 1 cc to Mr.K.Surya Narayanan, Advocate SR 48585

¶31

ug(co) prk22/12

¶32

C.M.A.No.2945 of 2004

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The Unite India Insuurnace v. Arun S/O.Shyan Goundenpalayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Unite India Insuurnace v. Arun S/O.Shyan Goundenpalayam

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

The Managing Director ` Vs S.Velu

M/S.National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs S.Thangavel

The Management of Tamil Nadu Vs the Presiding Officer

The National Insurance Vs Lubna Saida (Minor)

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chakkarapani

Lakshmi Vs Mohan Raj