Enhancement appeal in a workmen's compensation claim by an injured driver. The court confirmed the Commissioner's findings on negligence and employment, upheld the computation based on Rs.8,000 notional salary, age factor 159.80 and 65% disability, and dismissed the appeal confirming Rs.5,52,850 with interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CMA No.3134 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
C.M.A.No.3134 of 2021
Judgment reserved on Judgment pronounced on 26.03.2024 16.04.2024
K.Ravi
Represented by his wife and next friend Mrs.Madhammal ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Saravanan 2.M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited No.146/N, Second Floor, Kumar Complex, Anna Salai, Tiruchengode – 637 211 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 28.09.2020 made in Workmen's Compensation Case No.EC 55 of 2018 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Coonoor.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Aniruthan For R1 : No appearance For R2 : Mr.D.Bhaskaran
CMA No.3134 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The claim petitioner is the appellant herein seeking enhancement
of compensation awarded in Workmen's Compensation Case No.EC 55 of 2018 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Coonoor.
2. The factum of accident, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent and the vehicle being insured with the second respondent/insurance company, the validity of the insurance company and the employment of the appellant with the first respondent are not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings rendered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor with regard to negligence are hereby confirmed.
3. Before the Authority, wife of the appellant examined herself as PW1, Medical Officer attached to Govt. Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College & Hospital, Salem was examined as PW2 and Dr.A.Parthiban, Deepthi Hospital, Namakkal who had initially given treatment to the appellant was examined as PW3. Exs.A1 to A10 were also marked. No oral and documentary evidence were adduced on the side of the respondents.
CMA No.3134 of 2021
4. After trial, the Authority has granted a sum of Rs.5,52,850/- as
compensation to the appellant. Now, this appeal has been filed by the
appellant seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials on records.
6. On 10.11.2021, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was admitted
on the following substantial questions of law
(i) Whether the authority below is correct in fixing the monthly salary of the appellant / claimant at Rs.8,000/per month ignoring the eviden ce which indicates the monthly salary at Rs.15,000/- ?
(ii) Whether the lower Authority is erred in determining the loss of earning power at 65% when the medical evidence clearly shows the right hand was completely incapable of using. The Authority below is ignored the medical evidence which shows the paralytic attack on the right side of the body due to accident ?
(iii) Whether the lower Authority is correct in ignoring the medical evidence which shows the words are tumbling and the appellant/claimant could not speak as before the accident ?
(iv) Whether the Authority below is perverse due to non-consideration of materials as well as oral evidence available on record and the fixing of compensation of Rs.5,52,850/- instead of Rs.10,00,000/-?
CMA No.3134 of 2021
7. The multiplier applied by the Authority is not disputed. The
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claim petitioner is that even as per the Minimum Wages act, the salary for a driver is Rs.4584/- and alongwith DA Rs.675`1/-, the gross salary comes to Rs.11,335/-. Therefore, he would contend that lesser amount has been awarded as compensation by the Authority concerned and percentage of disability assessed by the Medical Board is also on the higher side. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant is not able to speak and proof of affidavit has been filed by the wife of the claim petitioner in this regard. This Court finds that the employer – employee relationship between the appellant and the first respondent has been established, the factum of accident, manner of accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident are not disputed. On the date of accident, the vehicle of the first respondent was duly covered with insurance policy under the second respondent/insurance company, as could be seen from Ex.P4 – insurance policy.
8. As per the tabular annexed, the minimum salary that can be
considered under the Employees Compensation Act is Rs.8,000/-. As per
Ex.P5-driving licence, at the time of accident, the appellant was aged 48
CMA No.3134 of 2021
years. The corresponding age ratio applicable is 159.80 and the appellant
has suffered 65% disability as per Ex.P9-disability certificate. After considering the documentary evidence Ex.P5, date of birth was fixed as 48 years and the relevant age factor was duly assessed. Similarly, considering Ex.P9-disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, 65% has been fixed as the disability of the appellant and accordingly, the compensation was arrived at Rs.4,98,576/- (8000 x 60/100 x 159.80 x 65%). Thus, I find that the calculation arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour,
Coonoor is just and fair which does not warrant interference by this Court
at this Appellate stage as the same does not suffer from any infirmity.
(i) this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed confirming
the amount of Rs.5,52,850/- awarded as compensation to the appellant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% on Rs.4,98,576/- from the date of accident till the date of deposit. No costs.
(ii) the second respondent/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the award amount before the Tribunal, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, less the amount, if any already deposited.
CMA No.3134 of 2021
(iii) on such deposit being made, the wife of the appellant is
permitted to the award amount alongwith interest, on filing appropriate
application before the Tribunal.
16 .04.2024
Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order rgr To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Labour Coonoor.
2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
CMA No.3134 of 2021
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
rgr
Judgment in C.M.A.No.3134 of 2021
16.04.2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Authority erred in fixing monthly salary at Rs.8,000 instead of Rs.15,000?
Whether the loss of earning power at 65% ignored medical evidence of paralysis and speech impairment?
Whether compensation of Rs.5,52,850 was perverse for ignoring oral and documentary evidence?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
K.Ravi
Saravanan
M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Parties & counsel
