Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4418
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
The Superintending Engineer Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle
Versus
V. Palaniappan
C.M.A. No. 1327 of 2006 & C.M.P. No. 5726 of 2006
Decided On : 05-10-2010
For the Petitioner:N. Muthusami, Advocate.
For the Respondent: No appearance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the employer to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act when an accident occurs in the course of employment.
Headnote:
Workmen's Compensation - Employment - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 45 - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 3, 4, 10 - The court discussed the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and the Electricity Act, 2003, particularly Section 45, in relation to the employment status of the deceased, the circumstances of the accident, and the liability for compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a workman employed by a contractor with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board who suffered a fatal accident while attempting to repair an electric pole. The claim for compensation was contested by the employer, arguing that the workman was not authorized to perform the repair and was not in an employer-employee relationship at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased workman was dutifully attempting to restore power to the public and that the accident occurred in the course of his employment. The court concurred with the findings of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and dismissed the appeal, confirming the compensation awarded.
Issues: The issues included determining the employment status of the deceased, his age and income before death, the entitlement to compensation, and the party responsible for payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the deceased was indeed working in the course of his employment at the time of the accident, and the employer was liable to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the Order awarding compensation was confirmed.
1. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent against the Order dated 18.10.2004, made in W.C.No.307 of 2002, on the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmens Compensation), Salem, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,71,300/-, failing which together with 9% interest per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment of compensation.
2. Aggrieved by the said Award and Decree, the appellant/respondent has filed the above appeal praying to set aside order passed by the Tribunal.
3. The short facts of the case are as follows:
One P.Vadivel, Contract Labour, a workman employed by (a contractor with) the opposite party-I of the TNEB day of 07.01.2002 received personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in his death on 07.01.2002. The cause of the injury was in discharging the fuse of all work at electric pole, he met electric cut resulting death. The applicant is dependant of the deceased workman being his father. The monthly wages of the deceased amount of Rs.170/- per day. The deceased was over the age of 15 years at the time of death of 20 years. As such, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,58,400/-before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmens Compensation), Salem.
4. The respondent/Superintending Engineer, Mettur Electricity Distribution Circle, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in their Counter, had resisted the claim petition that the respondent applicants son Vadivelu was working on contract basis at Thanneerpanthalpalayam Branch as a lineman. He was not authorised to work on the electric poster, electricity connections. On the date of accident and at the place of the incident namely Venkipalayam, some one was engaged. No complaint was received that the electric light was not burning at the accident place and it was also not entered in the register that the the light was not burning. Actually, one Guruswamy was working in the said place, as such the deceased had not been authorised to perform any work at the accident place. The deceased himself voluntarily involved himself in the said work. Further, the deceased was not earning a sum of Rs.170/- per day.
5. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmens Compensation) had framed the four issues for the consideration namely:
(i)Whether the deceased was working as a labourer under the respondent at the time of the accident occurring?
(ii)Before the death what was the age and income of the deceased?
(iii)How much compensation the claimant is entitled to receive?
(iv)Who is responsible to pay the compensation?
6. On the petitioners side, the claimant was examined as PW1 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4 namely Ex.P1-First Information Report, Ex.P2-Post-mortem Report, Ex.P3-Attendance Register, Ex.P4-School Transfer Certificate. On the respondents side one K.Natarajan was examined as RW1 and two documents were marked as Exs.R1 and R2 namely Ex.R1-Accident Register and Ex.R2-Fees of call register.
7. The PW1, the claimant, had adduced evidence stating that on 07.01.2002 at Karuveppampatti Panchayat, Kuppayeekadu, a light was not burning at some huts in the locality. Hence, the deceased climbed on the electric post and carried out the repairs. At that point of time, he was shocked by electric wire. In order to prove the same, Ex.P1-First Information Report and Ex.P2-Post-mortem Report were marked.
8. The RW1, K.Natarajan had adduced evidence stating that the deceased without the knowledge of the Electricity Board Office and also without permission from them, the deceased had carried out the repair works.
9. After consider the evidence of the both parties and documents marked as exhibits, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Workmens Compensation) had decided the four issues in favour of the applicant and awarded the compensation after adopting such a formula as follows:50/100XRs.2,400/-X224.00=Rs.2,68,000/-and also awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- u
