The proper jurisdiction and compassion in compensation claims are essential for justice.

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge in the present appeal is against an order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras on 25.4.2013, whereby an appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was accepted on the ground that the Compensation Commissioner at Tiruchirappalli has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint (sic) as it is the Compensation Commissioner at Cuddalore who has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint (sic).

3. In an accident, which occurred during the course of employment on 5.3.2001, the appellant lost his right leg which got stuck in a harvesting machine. The appellant was working as a worker in the agricultural farm of the respondent since 1997.

4. Learned Compensation Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 1,21,997 with 12 per cent interest. An appeal against the said award was maintainable only on substantial question of law in terms of S.30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. But unfortunately, the High Court interfered with the award on the ground of territorial jurisdiction on the make - believe stand that the injured has not pleaded in his claim petition that he was residing within the jurisdiction of the Compensation Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli.

5. We find that the High Court should not have interfered in an appeal filed against the award of the Compensation Commissioner dealing with the injury of amputation of leg suffered by the appellant during the course of employment. The High Court should have heart to alleviate the loss suffered by the appellant but the order passed by the High Court shows total non - application of mind without any compassion to set aside an award of grant of compensation on account of loss of a limb on wholly untenable ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant was a resident of Sriram Nagar, Thiruvaiyaru Town and Thanjavur District, falling within the jurisdiction of Tiruchirappalli, thus even legally the jurisdiction was that of Compensation Commissioner under S.21 (1) (b) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.

6. In view thereof, we allow the present appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order of the Compensation Commissioner. In addition to the amount already awarded by the Compensation Commissioner, the respondent No. 1 shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellant as costs, for depriving him of the compensation for the last more than 20 years. The due amount shall be paid within a period of two months from today.

7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is / are disposed of.
Appeal allowed.