Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
E.K. Imran - Appellant
Versus
D. Sekar & Another - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 1148 of 2013
Decided On : 12-09-2019
For the Appellant :T.G. Balachandran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:M. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 4-A of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, regarding the entitlement to interest after the failure to pay the award amount within 30 days.
Headnote:
Workmen Compensation Act - Appeal - Section 30 - 1, 2, 4-A - The court discussed the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant, including the reduction of partial permanent disability, loss of earning power, and the sufficiency of the compensation granted. The court also considered the evidence presented, including medical bills, disability certificates, and legal notices. The court modified the award passed by the lower court, increasing the compensation amount and directing the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount with interest. The court relied on legal provisions such as Section 4-A of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, and previous judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a loadman, sustained grievous injuries in a lorry accident and claimed compensation for bone fractures and loss of earning capacity. The lower court awarded Rs.4,41,590, which the appellant contested as insufficient.
Finding of the Court:
The court modified the award, increasing the compensation to Rs.4,79,467, considering the appellant's sustained injuries and loss of earning capacity. The court also directed the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount with interest.
Issues: The issues included the sufficiency of the compensation amount, reduction of partial permanent disability, and the legality of granting interest after the failure to pay the award amount within 30 days.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence presented, including medical bills and disability certificates, and the interpretation of legal provisions such as Section 4-A of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The court also relied on previous judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed, and the compensation amount was increased to Rs.4,79,467. The insurance company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest within four weeks.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act 1923, against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation - I, Chennai - 600 006 in W.C.No.229 of 2010 dated 17.12.2012.)
1. The appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the Order in W.C.No.229 of 2010 dated 17.12.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen Compensation – I, Chennai – 600 006 by raising the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-
(i) Whether the 60% of partial permanent disability reduced to 45% disability for the purpose of compensation by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour without any contra evidence by the 2nd respondent or any other material on record is correct?
(ii) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case establish that the loss of earning power by the appellant has to be treated as 100% instead of 45% fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour?
(iii) Whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour granting interest after failure by the 2nd respondent to pay the award amount within 30 days of receipt of the copy from the Court is legal?
(iv) Whether the granting of interest after failure of the 2nd Respondent to pay the award amount within 30 days from the receipt of the order is just?
(v) Whether the compensation of Rs.4,41,590/- granted by the Court below is sufficient under the facts and circumstances of the case?
2. The appellant has raised various grounds in the present appeal, and the same are as under:-
(a) The lower court has passed a very low award amount of Rs.4,41,590/- against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-.
(b) The court below has not considered the permanent disability of 60% in total for the fracture of left leg both bones, left femur and right ankle, which is not justifiable.
(c) The reduction of partial permanent disability to 45% for the purpose of determining loss of earning power is unjust.
(d) The appellant was aged 18 years at the time of accident, the loss of earning capacity was fixed at 45% as against 60% disability fixed by P.W.2, Doctor and the same has to be enhanced to 100%, in view of the inability sustained by the appellant to do the job of loadman, as earlier, which requires physical strength to move limbs of the body effectively and the same was lost in total.
(e) The claim of the appellant is that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, which was just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any reduction.
(f) The interest period ought to have been granted after 30 days from the date of accident and not from the date of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
3. The case of the appellant is that he was a loadman working in a lorry bearing registration no.TN-23-BZ-4362 at Chinnayanchattiram opposite to Annai Flour Mill. On 03.04.2010, around 3.15 a.m., the driver of the lorry bearing the said registration number had driven the lorry rashly and negligently and colluded with another lorry bearing registration No.AP-03-X-8238 standing on the left side of it resulting in grievous injuries to the appellant.
4. According to the appellant, due to the said accident, he had sustained bone fractures in left leg, left femur and fracture at right ankle. He had given treatment at Government Hospital, Kancheepuram and thereafter, at C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore from 04.04.2010 to 13.04.2010 as inpatient and thereafter, treated as outpatient. The appellant, who was 18 years old at the time of accident, was earning Rs.200/- per day and on average, a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. The 1st respondent, who had insured the said lorry with the 2nd respondent are liable to compensate the appellant for the injuries sustained. The insurance policy no.VGCO119862000100 is valid for the period from 06.10.2009 to 05.10.2010. The appellant, who had sustained 100% disability and could not work as he did earlier, had issue
