BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON: 11.03.2024 PRONOUNCED ON:.04.06.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR C.M.A(MD)No.542 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.6387 of 2019 Rajasekaran : Appellant/Respondent Vs.

A.Selvi Ananthi : Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, against the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labours, Trichy District in W.C.No.5 of 2016, dated

01.10.2018.

For Appellant : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinodh For Respondent : Mr.J.Anand Kumar

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order passed in W.C.No.5 of 2016, dated 01.10.2018, on the file of the Employee's Compensation Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy.

2. The case of the claimant is that she was working as a Box Maker in the respondent's concern, that on 18.08.2015 at about 03.30p.m., when the claimant was doing her allocated works, the factory Manager directed her to clean the printing machine of the factory, that the printing machine was in running condition at that time and without due care and attention, the factory Manager directed to clean the running machine and also avoided to stop the machine, that the petitioner, as per the directions of the factory Manager, attempted to clean the printing machine and at that time, her hands were pulled by the printing machine and crushed therein, that the petitioner sustained severe crush injuries in her both hands, that she was immediately taken to Front-Line Private Hospital, Trichy, that after first aid treatment, she was admitted in Olympia Hospital and Research Centre, Trichy and she was given inpatient treatment from 18.08.2015 to 02.09.2015 and again on 03.09.2015 till 14.09.2015, that the petitoner got the amputation injury in the course of and arising out of her employment as a worker in the respondent's Company, that since accident was occurred due to the negligent activities of the respondent's Manager and that since the petitioner being an employee of the respondent, was working in the company at the time of occurrence, the respondent is liable for the claim. It is the further case of the petitioner that she was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and was getting Rs.4,500/- p.m., as salary from the respondent.

3. The defence of the respondent is that the petitioner was engaged only as a helper and she has no duty to meddle with any machineries, that the petitioner, on 18.08.2015, without any permission from the authority and without following the safety instructions issued, has voluntarily involved in the accident, that the alleged accident was occurred due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the petitioner and also her failure to follow the safety instructions issued, that the respondent has spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses of the petitioner, that the injuries caused to the petitioner were all cured by providing best treatment by the respondnet management, that there is no physical disability or loss of earning capacity due to the alleged accident and that therefore, the respondent is not liable for the claim and the petitoner is not entitled to get any compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act.

4. During enquiry, the claimant has examined herself as P.W.1 and the Medical Officer – Thiru.Rajendran as P.W.2 and exhibited 12 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.12. The respondent has examined its Proprietor Thiru.Rajasekaran as R.W.1 and the machine operator of the respondent Thiru.Karthikeyan as R.W.2 and exhibited three documents as Exs.R.1 to R.3. The learned Employee's Commissioner, on considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both sides, has passed the impugned order dated 01.10.2018, by holding that the accident was occurred in the course of her employment as a worker in the respondent's concern and fixing the loss of earning capacity at 45%, directed the respondent concern to pay