Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Baby Leela Bai – Appellant
Versus
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No. 5071 of 2014|W.P. (MD)No.20208 of 2014|W.P.(MD)No. 17269 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
Important Points
Subject
Labour and Employment Law - Workplace Injury Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Compensation Principles - Application of multiplier method for calculating compensation for loss of future earning capacity due to injury - Consideration of 100% functional disability and 50% addition to future earnings - Use of pain and suffering as a non-pecuniary loss requiring assessment of claimant's age and deprivation. (Paras 17-22)
Facts of the case:
A driver employed by a state transport corporation suffered injury resulting in loss of vision in both eyes when the windshield of his bus was spontaneously broken, causing glass particle injuries. Despite medical certification of disability and its impact on fitness for the driver post, alternative employment was delayed and not consistently provided, resulting in multiple writ petitions seeking alternative employment, monetary benefits, medical invalidation, and compensation for injuries incurred. (Paras 1-5, 12-15)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for loss of vision caused by defective windshield and whether the petitioner should be granted alternative employment and medical invalidation benefits under applicable disability laws. (Paras 4, 12-15, 17)
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the windshield did not conform to prescribed safety glass standards, leading to the petitioner’s injury. The employing authority failed to provide adequate alternative employment despite medical board recommendations. The petitioner’s pain, suffering, and loss of future earning capacity were acknowledged, and compensation was computed using accepted legal principles including a multiplier of 15 and a 50% addition to future earning capacity. (Paras 12, 14-15, 21-23)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the employer is responsible for maintaining safety standards of vehicle components under the Motor Vehicle Rules. Failure resulting in injury entitles the employee to monetary compensation under the constitutional writ jurisdiction. Considering the petitioner’s total disability and medical certification, alternative employment must be facilitated and loss of earnings compensated, applying the multiplier method with enhancement for future prospects as established by precedent. (Paras 6-11, 17-22)
Result: The writ petition is allowed. The respondent corporation is directed to pay Rs.21,97,800/- with 6% interest from the date of filing within eight weeks. No costs. (Para 24)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background - petitioner’s injury and procedural history (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. standards and regulations governing windshields and safety glass (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments regarding injury, employer’s liability, medical invalidation and lack of alternative employment (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court’s analysis of compensation principles and relevant legal precedents (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. application of compensation principles to petitioner’s facts (Para 21 , 22) |
| 6. final award of compensation and order of the court (Para 23) |
ORDER
This writ petition was originally filed by one B.Robin, who was working as the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for loss of vision in both eyes. Pending this writ petition, the petitioner B.Robin died. Therefore, his wife Baby Leela Bai was substituted as the petitioner. The petitioner's husband Robin, while driving a bus in Route No.505 between Kaliyakkavilai to Madurai, the windshield of the bus was automatically broken and the broken glass particles had caused injuries on his right side eye ball. Therefore, he was taken to a nearby hospital, namely, Bejan Singh Eye Hospital, Nagercoil and admitted in the Intensive Care Unit and the glass particles inside the eye were removed. He also underwent a major eye surgery and he was discharged from the Hospital on 23.02.2006. Thereafter, he joined the duty in the month of May 2006.
2. While the petitioner Robin was on duty on 28.12.2010, he suffered bleeding in his right eye. Therefore, he went to the Ophthalmologist, where, he was diagnosed and informed that the vein leading to the eye is affected due to earlier injury. Thereafter, he was referred to the Aravind Eye Hospital for further treatment, where, a laser surgery was conducted. Again, he was suffering with severe pain in the eye. Therefore, he was suggested to undergo 'retina' surgery. He was also referred to Sankara Nethralaya Eye Hospital Chennai, where, he underwent 'retina' surgery on his right eye on 09.05.2011. Thereafter, on the advice of the Doctor, the petitioner Robin made a request for alternative employment, however, the same was not considered by the respondents. In the meantime, the petitioner Robin underwent another retina surgery on his left eye on 20.10.2011. Thereafter, he was provided with an alternative work as Traffic Controller for some time. However, again, he was compelled to do the driver job. On his repeated request, he was provided another alternative employment by the second respondent in the traffic control room with effect from 22.01.2013. However, within a short span, he was directed to drive the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner Robin filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 5071 of 2014, seeking alternative employment as per Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. This Court, by order dated 12.06.2014, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 24.01.2014 and pass orders on the merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.
3. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner Robin was referred for medical opinion. The Medical Officer, who verified the petitioner Robin, submitted a report that he is suffering from proliferative advanced diabetic retinopathy in both eyes with defective vision in both eyes and he may be referred to medical board for fitness. Thereafter, the petitioner Robin appeared before the Medical Board on 10.09.2014. The Medical Board has given an opinion that he is not fit to continue as a Driver and he was recommended for light duty. However, the respondents did not provide any alternative employment. Therefore, the petitioner Robin, once again, approached this Court by filing another writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.20208 of 2014. Immediately after filing the writ petition, the
