SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1482

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
R. Geethabanu & Others - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Tax Officer (Administration), Dindigul & Others - Respondent
C.M.A (MD) Nos. 1448 of 2016 & 166 of 2017
Decided On : 08-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:B.A. Mrurganantham, Advocate. For the Respondent:M. Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader, A.S. Mathialagan, Advocate.

The court clarified the principles governing the election provided under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the corresponding bar, stating that the claimants cannot claim compensation under both the Motor Vehicles Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Headnote:

Workmen's Compensation Act - Enhancement of Compensation - Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 4(1)(a) of The Workmen' S Compensation Act, 1923

Fact of the Case:

The claim petitioners sought enhancement of compensation awarded in W.C.No.311 of 2008 under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The deceased, a driver, succumbed to injuries in a road accident. The appeal challenged the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai. The substantial questions of law included the fixation of the deceased's salary and the neighboring of the award interest to the award after one month from the date of the accident.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the compensation fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was just and fair. The court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award passed in the claim filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The appeal against the fair and decreetal order passed in the claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act was also dismissed as not maintainable under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Issues: The issues included the fixation of the deceased's salary and the neighboring of the award interest to the award after one month from the date of the accident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compensation fixed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was just and fair. The court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed in the claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award passed in the claim filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act was dismissed. The appeal against the fair and decreetal order passed in the claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act was also dismissed. No Costs.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, to call for the records from the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai, in W.C.No.311 of 2008 and to modify the award of Rs.1,32,950/- passed in W.C.No.311 of 2008 dated 21.03.2014 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai to a total award of Rs.4,09,964/- or more as fixed by this Court and to award interest of 12% from 25.04.1998 with cost.

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.04.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.247 of 2008 on the file of I-Additional District Court, Madurai and to allow this CMA by directing the respondents before the tribunal to compensate the petitioner.)

Common Judgment

C.M.A(MD)No.1448 of 2016:

1. Claim petitioners are the appellant herein seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in W.C.No.311 of 2008.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award passed in W.C.No.311 of 2008 dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Madurai.

3. The claim petitioners are the legal representatives of Ramachandran, who worked as driver under the respondent, namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, Government of Tamilnadu. While on duty, on 25.03.1998, he succumbed to injuries in the road accident in collision with his Zeep and Lorry. The manner of the accident and the factum of the accident are not in dispute.

4. As the legal heirs, the appellants herein filed the claim petition. In the said enquiry, Ex.B1-FIR, Ex.B2-Postmortem certificate, Ex.B3- Salary certificate, Ex.B4-Rough sketch, ExB5-Death certificate and Ex.B6-Transfer certificate were marked.

5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner of Workman Compensation has awarded Rs.1,32,950/- along with Rs.1000/- towards funeral expenses and also awarded 12% of interest from the date of petition (08.10.2008) till the date of deposit and hence, this appeal.

6. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law.

“a. Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner is right in fixing the salary of the deceased?

b. Whether the learned Deputy Commissioner is right in neighbouring the award the interest to the award after one month from the date of the accident?”

7. The learned counsel appearing for the claim petitioners/appellants could contend that the petitioners are entitled to the compensation should have fixed the salary as Rs.5,835/- which was the salary of the petitioner's father, the deceased at the time of the accident. The learned Deputy Commissioner erred in calculating the compensation without any justification though he accepted the salary of the deceased as Rs.5,835/- but reducing it to Rs.2,000/- without any rationale. No reason was attributed to the reduction of the salary to Rs.2,000/- for computation of the compensation.

8. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents could contend that on the date of accident, namely, 25.03.1998 as per the provisions under Section 4(1) explanation, the maximum ceiling for the monthly wages is Rs.40,000/- and for the purpose of calculation 50% has to be taken as per provision under Section 4(1)(a) and hence made submission in support of the award.

9. After hearing both sides and also perusing the records, based upon the Ex.B6-Transfer certificate age of the deceased was fixed at 56 since the date of birth is 15.10.1942 and the accident was taken place on 25.03.1998. Age was determined as 58 and accordingly, the factum is fixed at 131.95.

10. The date of accident is 25.03.1998, the provision of law Workmen Compensation Act 1923 as to on the date of the accident. For easy reference Section 4(1)(a) is extracted hereunder:

Section 4(1)(a) of The Workmen' S Compensation Act, 1923:

“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:--

(a) where death r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top