Dismissed

P.Manikandan v. Prabhakar

Madras HC8 Jan 2024CMA/3480/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal by an employee seeking enhancement of workmen compensation was dismissed. The High Court confirmed the Deputy Labour Commissioner's award, rejecting claims of higher income and unproven future medical expenses due to lack of documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed, and the award dated 08.02.2021 by the Deputy Commissioner for Employees Compensation was confirmed.

P.Manikandan Vs Prabhakar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶6

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶7

P.Manikandan

¶8

... Appellant / Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Prabhakar

¶11

The Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Bhvaneswari Complex, No.2, Dr.Sankaran Salai, Namakkal Town-637001

¶12

... Respondents /Opposite Parties

¶13

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the Judgment and decree dated 08.02.2021 passed in E.C.No.199 of 2017 on the file of Deputy Commissioner for Employees' Compensation/Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor.

¶14

For Appellant	:	Mr.C.Thangaraju
For R1	:	No appearance
For R2	:	M/s.I.Malar

¶15

1/9

¶16

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

¶17

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the employee seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment awarded in E.C. No.199 of 2017 dated 08.02.2021, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner for Employees Compensation/Corporation of Labour, Coonoor.

¶20

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Tribunal.

¶21

The case of the workmen is that he sustained employment injury on 26.04.2017 at about 11.00 p.m., while tying a rope around the tyre of the Lorry. Immediately, he was admitted into various hospitals and after taking treatment he has come forward with the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him during the course of employment. During treatment, it is noted that, the injured has sustained fracture calcanium both side and contusion right wrist. Injuries caused 30% disability as fixed by the Doctor, who treated the injured.

¶22

2/9

¶23

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

¶24

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶25

The first respondent is the employer. The second respondent is the Insurance Company. It is the admitted case that the workmen herein is covered by the Insurance Policy and based on the insurance coverage, he has approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner seeking compensation for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. The first respondent - Employer has not contested the claim and the second respondent -Insurance Company has disputed that the injuries sustained was not related to employment injury. They have also disputed the disability sustained by the workmen.

¶26

Based on the evidences placed on record, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has held that the claimant herein has sustained employment injury and since no income proof has been adduced, based on the Central Government Notification, fixed the notional income of the claimant as Rs.8,000/- per month by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and by adopting the factor prescribed under the Workmen Compensation Act and awarded compensation.

¶27

3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶29

Aggrieved over the quantum of compensation awarded, the employee has approached this Court by way of filing of this appeal and that by raising substantial question of law that the monthly income fixed by the claimant based on the Central Government Notification is not proper since the employee was earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/- per month. Hence adoption of Central Government Notification for awarding compensation is not proper. The learned counsel for the employee has further stated that since the employee is a lorry driver by profession and his income is more than Rs.15,000/- and the same has not been properly considered by the Deputy Labour Commissioner while awarding compensation. Hence prays to enhance the compensation by fixing monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The learned counsel has also submitted that the medical expenses incurred was also not properly ordered to be compensated.

¶30

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that based on the evidences placed on record, the Deputy Labour Commissioner has passed an award and same is proper. Hence, no need for interference of the same by this Court.

¶31

4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶33

I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and

¶34

also perused the records.

¶35

Eventhough, the employee claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as notional income he has not proved his income before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and he has not even taken any steps to produce Salary Certificates or any other documents issued by the first respondent, who is the employer. Since no evidence has been placed on record to prove the monthly income of the workmen, the Labour Commissioner has applied Central Government Notification prescribing maximum applicable income for the workmen, who suffered injury or death. Accordingly, notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month was taken up by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and this Court finds there is no infirmity in the fixation of notional income and the same is hereby confirmed.

¶36

The next contention with regard to the medical expenses incurred by the employee/claimant is concerned, he has incurred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- immediately, after the accident and that he has requested to grant additional sum of Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses but

¶37

5/9

¶38

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

¶39

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶40

however, there was no evidence placed on record in support of the same. The

¶41

claimant has produced medical bills for a sum of Rs.57,560/- the Deputy Labour Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.55,915/- as medical expenses. This Court is of the view that since the compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses is only based on the medical bills and no other materials have been produced to substantiate the quantum of compensation claimed under the head medical expenses including future medical expenses, this Court is of the view that no interference is required in awarding medical expenses. Accordingly, this Court finds no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the claimant is dismissed. The Award and Decree passed in E.C. No.199 of 2017 dated 08.02.2021, by the Deputy Commissioner for Employees Compensation/Corporation of Labour, Coonoor is hereby confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal.

¶43

08.01.2024

¶44

6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶46

ssi

¶47

Index:Yes/No Speaking Order:Yes/No Neutral Citation Case: Yes/No

¶48

To:

¶49

The Commissioner for Employees' Compensation/ Commissioner of Labour, Coonoor.

¶50

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Chennai.

¶51

7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶53

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

¶54

ssi

¶55

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶56

8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

C.M.A. No. 3480 of 2021

¶58

08.01.2024

¶59

9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.Manikandan v. Prabhakar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Manikandan v. Prabhakar

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

K.Elumalai Vs the Managing Director

The Deputy Director Vs Bharti Insulations and Enterprises

Nandhagopal Vs Shankar

P.Parvathi Vs the Managing Director

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prabhu

The Manager Vs Savithramma