Allowed

Arumugam v. the Divisional Electrical

Madras HC17 Mar 2023REV.APLC(MD)/103/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench reviewed an order dismissing a workmen's compensation appeal. The court found the previous decision erroneously dismissed the entire claim petition rather than enhancing compensation. The review was allowed, setting aside the dismissal and restoring the file for final hearing to address the enhancement claim.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.11.2008 in C.M.A(MD)No.1453 of 2007 is set aside and the file is restored for final hearing of the appeal to enhance compensation.

Arumugam Vs the Divisional Electrical — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Rev.Aplc(MD)No.103 of 2010

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

Rev.Aplc(MD)No.103 of 2010 in C.M.A(MD)No.1453 of 2007

¶7

1.Arumugam

¶8

2.Sankarayee

¶9

... Petitioners/Appellants

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kattuparamakudi, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶12

2.The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Parthibanoor, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

... Respondents/ Respondents

¶14

Prayer: Review Petition filed under Section 114 and 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, praying this Court to review the order in C.M.A(MD)No.1453 of 2007 by this Court dated 28.11.2008 by allowing this appeal and enhance the compensation amount as prayed for.

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

1/4

¶17

Rev.Aplc(MD)No.103 of 2010

¶18

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Kumaravel For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramanathan Standing Counsel

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present review application has been filed by the appellants in C.M.A(MD)No.1453 of 2007 seeking to review the order, dated 28.11.2008.

¶21

The appellants as claimants have filed W.C.No.336 of 2004 before Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai under Workmen's Compensation Act seeking compensation for the death of their son. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour had fixed the compensation at Rs.2,52,076/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Two Thousand and Seventy Six only), after arriving at a finding that there is an employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the respondents in the claim petition.

¶22

Not being satisfied with the quantum of award, the claimants had filed C.M.A(MD)No.1453 of 2007. This Court while considering the appeal on merits, had not only dismissed the appeal, but has also set

¶23

aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Workmen’s https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/4

¶25

Rev.Aplc(MD)No.103 of 2010

¶26

Compensation Act thereby, completely dismissed the claim petition. In an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, this

¶27

Court has erroneously dismissed the claim petition itself. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶28

Therefore, the Review Application stands allowed. The order dated 28.11.2008 made in C.M.A(MD)No.1453 of 2007 is hereby set side and the same is restored to file.

¶29

17.03.2023

¶30

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gbg

¶31

Note : Registry is directed to list the appeal for final hearing on 27.03.2023.

¶32

¶33

1.The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Kattuparamakudi, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶34

2.The Assistant Electrical Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Parthibanoor, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

3/4

¶37

Rev.Aplc(MD)No.103 of 2010

¶38

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶39

gbg

¶40

Order made in Rev.Aplc(MD)No.103 of 2010

¶41

Dated: 17.03.2023

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

4/4

Arumugam v. the Divisional Electrical

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam v. the Divisional Electrical

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

G.T.L. Infrastructure Limited (Gil), Vs Amaladoss

Duty Driver, Vs The Superintent of police

M/s.Cholaamandalam Ms General Vs Mohan

Veeri Ummal Vs Rajendran Babu

The Managing Director Vs Veeralakshmi, W/o.Ramar

The Branch Manager Vs Selvi