Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4095
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA
The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Tambaram Depot, Tambaram Versus
Masilamani
C.M.A.NPD.No.2217 of 2003
Decided on: 08-10-2009
For the Appellant :T. Chandrasekan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A.K. Palanichamy, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct application of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Minimum Wages Act in determining fair compensation for work-related accidents.
Headnote:
Compensation - Workmen's Compensation - Minimum Wages Act - [Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 3, Minimum Wages Act] - The court discussed the applicability of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Minimum Wages Act in determining the compensation for the deceased employee. It highlighted the correct relevant factor and determination of loss of income at Rs.1,51,200/- based on the deceased's age and monthly income. The court confirmed the award passed by the Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant, father of the deceased, filed a claim petition for compensation after his son died in a work-related accident. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour awarded a compensation of Rs.1,51,200/-, which was contested by the appellant-Transport Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred during the course of employment and the compensation awarded was just, fair, and reasonable. It confirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no error or illegality in the order warranting interference.
Issues: The issues included the justification of awarding compensation in the absence of evidence, the deceased's status as a regular employee, and the entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on valid materials and evidence, confirming the compensation amount determined using the deceased's age, monthly income, and the relevant factor.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the award passed by the Tribunal was confirmed. No costs were awarded, and the related application was closed.
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated dated 05.04.2002 made in W.C. No.144 of 2001 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai.
2. The above appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether the Lower Authority is justified while awarding the compensation in the absence of any evidence?
(ii) Whether the Lower Authority has justified in awarding a sum of Rs.1,51,200/-as compensation in the absence of any evidence?
(iii) Whether the findings of the Lower Authority is sustainable on the question of compensation?
(iv) Whether the Lower Authority has justified in entertaining the application when the Workmen is not a regular employee?
3. The claimant is the father of the deceased-Manivasagam. He was working as a labour in appellant-Transport Corporation, Tambaram Depot. On 29.07.1998, while the deceased was working in the Depot at that time the bus bearing registration No.T.N.21-N-0291 came into the depot and while the bus taken into reverse dashed against the deceased-Manivasagam and died on the spot. Hence, the father of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Teynampet, Chennai. The Appellant-Transport Corporation resisted the claim. Based on the pleadings, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour framing the following issues:
1. Whether the employee/deceased was died in the course of employment or not?
2. What is the age of the deceased and also what is the wages of the deceased employee?
3. What is the compensation the deceased is entitled to?
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner held that the accident was occurred during the course of employment and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,51,200/- Aggrieved by that order, the appellant-Transport Corporation has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Transport Corporation submitted that the Tribunal awarded a consolidated compensation of Rs.1,51,200/- without any basis and justification. Learned counsel would further submit that the deceased is not a workman, he is only an apprentice. Therefore, he was not eligible to get any compensation . Therefore, the award has to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the relevant materials and evidence on record and came to the right conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation. Hence the order of the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed.
6. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimant, Pws 1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. The claimant himself examined as PW1 who is father of the deceased. Ex.P1 is the Postmortem Certificate. Ex.P2 is the First Information Report. Ex.P3 is the Legal Notice dated 02.08.1998. On the side of the appellant-Transport Corporation, one Thiagarajan-RW1, Legal Assistant working in the appellant Transport-Corporation was examined. The appellant also marked Exs.1 and
2. Ex.R1 is the copy of employees application for apprentice. Ex.R2 is the Form – 18. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only in the course of the employment and due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant-Transport Corporation and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence.
7. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased employee was 22 years. Ex.P2 is the Postmortem Certificate in which the age of the deceased was mentioned as 22 years. In his evidence,RW1 has also stated that the date of birth of the deceased is 210. 1977. After considering the same, the Deputy Commissioner has fixed the age of the deceased as 20 years. In the evidence of PW1 as well as in the application for compensation it was stated that the deceased was earning Rs
